Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Strikes

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to legislate on the subject of strike action in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to withdraw trade union immunities from strike action in monopoly public services.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the light of recent disputes the Government are reviewing the law on industrial action. We will bring forward any proposals in due course.

Mr. Riddick: I welcome the review. May I suggest, however, that a possible way forward would be to remove the legal immunities enjoyed by trade unions during strike action, particularly in public service monopolies? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by the National Union of Railwaymen to continue its strike after the other two rail unions had accepted British Rail's offer is almost unbelievable and utterly disgraceful? Does it not show that the NUR does not give a damn about the travelling public?

Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the decision itself—it was a deplorable decision, and one which caused hardship to many people. I can only hope that the NUR will think again about its policy. As for the review, we shall obviously consider the whole position and, as I have said, bring forward proposals in due course.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too many strikes take place in the public as opposed to the private sector? Does he also agree that there are far too many monopolies in the public sector? While any strike is to be deplored, the effects of strikes in the monopoly public services go far beyond the people directly involved in the industrial action, hitting those who cannot use alternative

provision, either because there is no such provision or because they cannot afford it. Should not my right hon. Friend take action to protect the vulnerable in our society?

Mr. Fowler: As I have said, we are reviewing the legal position. As an immediate step, I think that the NUR should accept the tribunal award, as have the other unions concerned. I do not believe that the public will understand if one of the unions keeps the strike going. We want an end to the dispute and so do the public—and so, I believe, do most railwaymen.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn people in well-paid jobs, including Ministers, who are always attacking those in low-paid jobs for taking industrial action to improve their standard of living?

Mr. Fowler: No one is attacking anyone at this point. [Interruption.] We are saying that the NUR should follow the example of the other two unions and accept the tribunal award. It would come well from the Opposition—particularly the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—to condemn industrial action which is causing unnecessary hardship to many thousands of people.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the same sort of attack was made on the trade union movement in pre-war Fascist Germany? As the Prime Minister who appointed the right hon. Gentleman—and who may well be shifting him—supports trade unions in Poland, will he tell her that trade unions in this country should also have rights, which should not be confined to Poland? Why should not the NUR make its own decision after the weeks and months of deception on the part of British Rail management, which has betrayed agreements and continually gone behind the union's back, especially in the courts?

Mr. Fowler: I believe that the vast majority of people want the NUR to accept the tribunal's decision. The other two unions involved in the dispute have accepted it, and it is incomprehensible that the NUR has taken its present position.
The purpose of industrial relations legislation is to protect the public, and every poll carried out shows that our trade union legislation is supported by the vast majority.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1979 there have been three times as many strikes in the public sector as in the private sector? Does that not make the case for further privatisation and also for the further regulation of public sector unions, whose strike action inevitably hits the most vulnerable people?

Mr. Fowler: No decision has yet been taken on privatisation. I repeat that the immediate action that can be taken now is for the NUR to call off the industrial action and accept the tribunal's award, which has already been accepted by the two other unions.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State believe in the basic right of an employee to withdraw his or her labour?

Mr. Fowler: There is, of course, a right to strike, but I think that the hon. Gentleman and also the public would expect us to look at strikes in the public services. We are not alone in doing that. Other European countries are


having similar problems. I have already said that we shall review the position, and that is what we shall do. When we have reached conclusions, we shall announce them.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that my constituents in Kent are fed up with strikes in the public services and with the posturing of national union officers? Is it not a fact that the losers are not only the public but public servants in the south-east and that we should be far better served by regional pay and local negotiations?

Mr. Fowler: That is obviously one of the issues in the dispute, but I think that what the public and the railwaymen want is an end to the dispute. Apparently, only the NUR executive wants the dispute to continue. I very much hope that the Labour party will make it clear this afternoon that it, too, wants the industrial action to be called off.

Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge and make clear that a ban on public sector strikes—something which the Government talked about during the dispute—is a daft idea? It did not work during the second word war, it was specifically rejected by the Government in 1981, it is not operated in other European countries and it is simply an invitation to provocation by management. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if he seriously wants to safeguard essential services, as we all do, he would do far better if, rather than withdrawing fundamental democratic rights, he sought to improve the arbitrary and inept mismanagement that we have seen so often in the public sector in recent years?

Mr. Fowler: As I have made clear, we are reviewing the law on industrial relations. We shall make our proposals known after the review. The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has taken his line straight from the NUR executive. He has offered not one word of condemnation of the industrial action. The fact is that however damaging or irresponsible any industrial action is, the hon. Gentleman will always support it.

Employment Training

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the eligibility requirements for employment training.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Representations are received from time to time. The eligibility conditions for employment training are sufficiently widely drawn to help those who are most disadvantaged in the labour market.

Mr. Janner: Is it correct that the Department of Employment has given instructions to employment service managers that the number of people to be admitted to or referred for employment training must be increased by 50 per cent? If that is true, does it not mean that people will be put on employment training who are totally unsuitable for it and that this is yet another of the Government's efforts to fiddle the unemployment figures?

Mr. Nicholls: No, the employment training programme is the most successful programme so far to train the adult unemployed to get themselves back into the world of work. The programme is supported by a great number of

Labour-controlled authorities. There is no question of its being compulsory or of trying to force people to train. The Government are anxious that anyone who has it in him to benefit from the sort of training available should do so.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in some parts of the country the number of people available for employment training is diminishing rapidly? Will he therefore examine carefully the need for a flexible policy to ensure that the additional cost per head is allowed for in Government budgeting for the future of the scheme?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the consequences for employment training of the declining unemployment rate. He may have wondered why the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) did not remind the House that the percentage fall in unemployment in his constituency for the year ending June 1989 was 19·2 per cent. We accept that funding arrangements have to be kept under review.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: In March 1989 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 26,685,000. This represents an increase of nearly 600,000 since March 1988 and is the highest level of employment ever in this country.

Mr Maples: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in the general level of employment in Britain has resulted in a fall in the level of unemployment in my constituency of more than 20 per cent. in the past 12 months? What is the level of unemployment in Greater London and how many vacancies are registered there?

Mr Fowler: Greater London has an unemployment rate of about 5 per cent. In Greater London generally, unemployment has fallen by more than 24 per cent. in the year to June 1989. Overall, there are now 226,000 vacancies in jobcentres around the country and we estimate that there are 600,000 vacancies in the economy generally. In Greater London there are about 25,000 vacancies in jobcentres and more than 100,000 in the economy. There is therefore no reason why unemployment should not continue to fall, provided that pay settlements are reasonable and strikes are avoided.

Mr. James Lamond: Why does not the Secretary of State give us the other side of the picture? For example, more than 15,000 people have lost jobs in the textile industry this year alone. There is never a statement from the Dispatch Box, like the one boasting of the Honda investment, about the closure by Courtaulds in the north-west.

Mr. Fowler: Obviously, there are areas where unemployment has been more difficult and has risen in contrast with other areas. The hon. Gentleman will know that the rate of employment in the north-west has reduced at a faster rate than most other areas of the country.

Employment Training

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many officials of the Manpower Services Commission are directly involved in the supervision of employment training; and what is the average number of schemes and participants for which each such officer is responsible.

Mr. Nicholls: Around 1,500 staff in the Training Agency's area offices are involved in the administration of employment training. These staff are engaged in a range of duties, including checking claims and authorising payments, monitoring schemes and general office duties. Taking into account these different functions, on average there is about one member of staff per training agent or manager, or one member of staff per 130 trainees.

Mr. Hardy: That scarcely suggests that there are sufficient resources to provide a proper response when there are grounds for serious concern about any particular scheme, as is the case with one scheme in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham, about which my hon. Friends and I have been in correspondence with the Minister.

Mr. Nicholls: I do not accept that the figures show any such thing. I can only repeat the offer that I made to the hon. Gentleman as long ago as May—that if he and his hon. Friends wish to see me to discuss a particular scheme I shall be more than happy to do so. Certainly his views would not be shared by his own metropolitan borough council—a Labour-controlled council which is involved in employment training as a training manager and provides 175 places.

Mr. Baldry: Does not employment training provide high-quality training for those in the work force or the potential work force who might otherwise find it difficult to obtain skills training? It is not the case that 18 per cent. of those on employment training have literacy or numeracy difficulties, 11 per cent. come from ethnic minorities, 12 per cent. have physical disabilities and 50 per cent. come from inner cities? Those groups need to be targeted to bring them into the labour force. Instead of carping, the Labour party should be applauding these initiatives.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has it exactly. At a time when unemployment is coming down dramatically—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for example, it has fallen by 27·7 per cent. in the past year—those still unemployed find it harder to get back to work. The whole climate of employment training and the various waivers of eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that those most in need of help obtain the help that they need.

Trade Unions

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many official meetings he has had with trades union leaders since assuming his present office.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment Mr. John Cope): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with trade union leaders, as do all other Employment Ministers.

Mr. Adley: I welcome that answer, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a slight incongruity in his reply and the fact that Ministers at the Department of Transport with responsibility for British Rail have not met the unions for a year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the intransigence of the National Union of Railwaymen, which we have seen in the past few hours holding the jobs of other workers to ransom, is one reason why there is an urgent need to restructure the trade unions in the railways and replace three trade unions with one? Does my right hon. Friend see any role for his officials in trying to bring that process forward?

Mr. Cope: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the way out of the present difficulty is for the NUR to accept the 8·8 per cent. offer arising from the tribunal's decision. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is, of course, always available to help both sides in any dispute and it, rather than my officials, is the proper body to approach.

Mr. Wilson: If the Minister gets around to meeting trade union leaders, will he place on the agenda the plight of 16 and 17-year-olds? Does he realise that one of the risks of meeting trade union leaders is that the bogus unemployment statistics that Ministers use so freely may be challenged? Does he accept that according to statistics supplied by the House of Commons Library, fully one quarter of the alleged drop in unemployment in Scotland between April 1988 and April 1989 is accounted for by the simple device of removing all 16 and 17-year-olds from the unemployment register? More than 18,000 Scottish unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds were claiming benefit in April 1988. In April 1989, there were none. Does the Minister regard that as a success for Government policy or for statistical sleight of hand?

Mr. Cope: No trade union leaders whom we have met recently have raised that matter. There are plenty of youth training scheme places available in all areas, including the hon. Gentleman's own area. That is the most important point. All the statistics are published and made available. on a proper international basis.

Secondary Industrial Action

Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints about secondary picketing or secondary action have been received by the trade union commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: I understand that no applications for assistance have so far been made to the commissioner in connection with secondary action or picketing.

Sir Michael Shaw: I welcome that reply, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Government's action in changing the law has been received well and has been of real benefit not only to all those engaged in industry, but to the general public?

Mr. Cope: Yes, I think that it has been an exceptionally beneficial measure, which we introduced among other trade union reforms. It would be exceptionally damaging if it were reversed, as the Labour party intends.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that there have been no complaints about secondary picketing arising from the dispute at Ever-Sure Textiles in Sheffield, where


the workers—predominantly women—are in the fifth week of a strike and trying to persuade management to grant trade union recognition? Does he understand that the women concerned, who when in work receive £61 for a 38-hour week, are anxious to obtain trade union recognition and to improve wages and conditions of employment? Will he urge the management of Ever-Sure Textiles to get back to the ACAS talks so that this unhappy dispute can be resolved quickly?

Mr. Cope: I do not intend to intervene in the dispute. No applications for assistance about secondary action in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned or in others, have been received by the commissioner.

Strikes

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes in the first quarter of the current year and in the same period of 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: In the first quarter of this year, 175,000 working days were lost through strikes. During the first quarter of 1979, in the period of the last Labour Government, the number of working days lost through strikes was 6,724,000.

Mr. Colvin: What is all this talk about a summer of discontent? On the basis of those figures, the position during Labour's winter of discontent was 40 times worse than the present situation. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that industrial disputes in the public sector are three times more likely than in the private sector and that if we want industrial peace in public transport, whether among railway workers or air traffic controllers, we should either ban strikes or privatise the industries, or both?

Mr. Fowler: I have already said that privatisation is a longer-term issue. We are reviewing industrial relations law and will make our announcements in due course. I think that most hon. Members want an end to the current dispute and want the NUR to accept the offer that is now being made.

Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister recognise that the primary reason for the reduction in strikes since 1979 was mass unemployment—topping 3 million—and the decimation of whole tracts of the industrial sector? Does he recognise that much of the legislation passed during that time has been irrelevant, which is why we now have an upsurge in strikes?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that. Every opinion poll has shown that the public value the changes in the law that have been introduced since 1979. I know few people who want to return to the kind of conditions that we had before 1979. The only exception is the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great changes that has occurred since 1979 is that working people and management have worked much more closely together in providing pay and conditions based on productivity and an understanding that unless they produce the right goods at the right price their jobs and future prosperity are at risk?

Mr. Fowler: That is right. Over the past year, there has been a record increase in the number of jobs created. One of the lessons learnt from the 1970s was that industrial action and strikes not only lost jobs but exported our jobs overseas. I do not think that anyone wants to return to that situation. That is why it is so eccentric of the Labour party to put forward proposals to extend secondary action and secondary picketing.

Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Secretary of State realise that later figures for this year show a substantial increase in the number of days lost through industrial action? How does he explain that increase? Is it because of the Government's failure to handle inflation? Is it because senior management are paying themselves up to a 200 per cent. wage increase? Is it because the present Secretary of State believes that he has a personal career interest in generating conflict in industry?

Mr. Fowler: I make it absolutely clear where we and the Government stand. We want to see an end not only to this dispute but to other industrial disputes. The public certainly want the railway dispute to end, as do most railwaymen. The most indicative part of the debate this afternoon has been the way in which the Opposition Front Bench avoided every opportunity of condemning industrial action and of urging the NUR to follow the example of the other two unions, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, and to accept the tribunal's arbitration decision. The public will draw their own conclusions about the Opposition's attitude.

Mr. Gow: Is it my right hon. Friend's view that today's strike and any future strike called by the NUR are unjustified and unjustifiable? Is it his view that it is in the best interests of every member of the NUR, of every employee of British Rail, of British Rail and of the travelling public that this strike should cease at once?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, that is entirely my view, and it is also the view of the overwhelming majority of the public and of all the travelling public. I think that the message that should go out is that this strike should be called off. It is against the public interest, and the sooner it is called off, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

Employment Training

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of employment training placements in the Greater London region.

Mr. Nicholls: We estimate that more than 12,100 people on employment training in the London region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day.

Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that his figures conceal the fact that there has been a cut in places which greatly exceeds the cut in the level of unemployment in Greater London. Is he trying to run down the Deptford skill centre? If not, how does he explain the fact that the number of students on the plumbing course has gone down from nine to four, that no tool kits are provided and that there is no instructor? Could it possibly be because the skill centre is based on prime development land? Does this not


make a complete nonsense of the £14 billion employment training advertising campaign that the Government are promoting?

Mr. Nicholls: No, it does not. If the hon. Lady looked at the success of employment training, she would see that it has been very substantial. That success is apparently shared in by her London borough, because at the time of the original contracting for places to provide employment training, her local Labour-controlled authority expressed an interest in the scheme. It is quite obvious that, when the unemployment figures are falling, there may be a reduction in training places. The point is that this scheme provides places for those who want to be trained. That is something in which the hon. Lady should take delight and not denigrate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have got their figures wrong in terms of employment training simply because, in their wildest dreams, they could not have expected unemployment to come down as quickly as it has? Will he confirm that many private employers are now providing a great deal more training as an incentive for people to join their companies, and that this is to be welcomed—indeed, it should be welcomed by both sides of the House?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We never predicted the extent to which the unemployment figures would fall. The fall has been even larger than the Labour party said it would achieve with policies that have failed in the past. The important thing about the programme is that it is working and that it has the increasing commitment of the employer community. It has shown that it can get unemployed people back to work, and it has the support of local authorities throughout the country, many of them Labour controlled. The only place where the scheme is constantly denigrated is in the House, by Opposition Members.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The whole House will have noted that the Under-Secretary of State has totally failed to answer the original supplementary question. Let me repeat it for his benefit. Will he comment on the quality of a scheme where trainees are supposedly on a plumbing course but there is no instructor and no tool kit? Is this not typical of employment training? Why does he not respond to that? Secondly, will he respond to the question about whether the Government intend to run down the Deptford skill centre—the number of instructors at the end of August will be two thirds what it is now—because, as planning permission has already been granted on that site, it is worth far more as a piece of real estate than it is as a place for skills training?

Mr. Nicholls: It should be obvious from everything that I have said that the Government are totally committed to having a training programme which is of a proper quality. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case where he believes that those high standards of training have fallen down, there is no reason why he cannot bring it to my, or my right hon. Friend's attention, and we will look at it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tries to pretend, by coming to the Dispatch Box with case details which we do not have, that that says something about the quality of the programme, but all it does is say something about the quality of Labour's opposition to the employment figures coming down.

Quota Exemptions

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines are issued to his Department's staff regarding the distribution of quota exemption permits to employers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Instructions to disablement resettlement officers require them to consider the availability of suitably registered disabled people, and the degree of commitment shown by employers towards meeting their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

Mr Ashley: Does the Minister recognise that more than three quarters of firms do not fulfil their quota obligation to ensure that disabled people make up 3 per cent. of their work force? Is he aware that more than half of those firms receive a permit from the Department to enable them to evade their responsibilities to disabled people? Does the Minister accept that the Department is showering firms with permits as though they were confetti—18,500 of them—making a mockery of the quota system? The Minister should advocate granting permits only in exceptional circumstances when there are no disabled people available to do the job, which is not so today, with two thirds of disabled people looking for jobs.

Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are examining the quota system as part of our wider review. The first draft of the review document is with Ministers now. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had been showering permits on firms. In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the numbers have been constant for some years.

Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend examine ways in which the public sector can increase the number of disabled people who are employed?

Mr. Lee: We are always doing just what my hon. Friend suggests and I also stress that the Government have spent substantial amounts of money on help for the disabled—about£220 million in mainstream employment terms and a further £128 million on specific programmes in 1988–89.

Mr. Wareing: Would it not make more sense if. instead of making threats about abolishing the quota system, the Minister made a positive attempt to ensure that the system worked? For example, when will the number of disablement resettlement officers be restored to its 1979 level? Should not the Minister be keen to help disabled people rather than trying to ruin the existing system which is being destroyed by his Government's policies through the Department's allocation of permits?

Mr. Lee: As I have said, the Government are spending a substantial amount in trying to help disabled people in a host of ways. I resent the hon. Gentleman's claim that we are threatening the quota system. That is far from the truth. I am saying only that the quota system is being examined sensibly as part of our overall review. In addition, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee questioned the quota system and pointed out that it was costing £1·4 million to administer.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that surveys show that disabled people give loyal, capable and consistent service? Will his Department point out to employers just how valuable disabled people are and encourage them to employ more, voluntarily?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe in a policy of promoting the employment of disabled people by good practice rather than by legislation and with the increasing tightening of the labour market there are greater opportunities than ever before for the employment of disabled people.

Employment Training

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is now the number of organisations who are contracted to provide places under employment training.

Mr. Nicholls: There are 1,307 organisations which are contracted with the Training Agency to provide training as training managers. A further 180 organisations are contracted to provide assessment as training agents.

Mr. Wallace: In a written answer to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 6 July, the Minister said that of the 23 large company employment training schemes, almost half had fewer than 50 per cent. of the maximum number of places allowed taken up. Apparently, the drop-out rate has been accelerating. Given that employment training is the only scheme available for the long-term unemployed and as someone who therefore wants that scheme to work, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that those figures are unsatisfactory? What assessment has he made of what has gone wrong and what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Nicholls: For someone who expresses his commitment to employment training, the hon. Gentleman makes a highly selective use of the information given in parliamentary answers. The hon. Gentleman should look at the total number of placements provided by employers as training managers at both national and area level. If he examines the employer placements provided by many major national companies he will find that there are more than 14,000 places available in training managerships and a great many employment placements with major employers who are not training managers.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that the reason for the drop outs and the low take-up is that, with few exceptions, the employment training scheme is a sham? Evidence shows that in many areas many of the schemes are closing down because the places are not being taken up.

Mr. Nicholls: No. That is just about as far from the truth as it could possibly be. The training programme has the support not only of Conservative-controlled authorities, but of many Labour-controlled authorities. It is that cross-party and cross-community support that helps to make the scheme so successful. The shame of the Liverpool city council, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is that it went further than merely not joining in; it actually tried to boycott the employment training programme. That says

something about the real commitment of Left-wing councils to doing something positive to help those who need help.

Tourism

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends announcing the outcome of, and decisions arising from, his Department's review of tourism initiated in July 1988.

Mr. Lee: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) at column 278.

Mr. Raffan: By asking the British Tourist Authority to devolve greater authority to its overseas regions, does my hon. Friend risk the possibility of more uniform and so less effective promotion of Wales overseas?

Mr. Lee: Not at all. As a result of the findings of our review, we are asking the BTA to put more of its marketing effort and more of its personnel abroad at the sharp end. The problem at present, in our view, is that its staff is concentrated very much in this country. Of a total complement of 460 staff, only 170 are overseas.

Mr. Cryer: In the review, has the Minister ensured that people working in the tourist industry have the right to join trade unions, and that the trade unions are given the opportunity to recruit in the tourist industry to ensure decent wages and working conditions in an industry which is notorious for the lack of either? Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if trade unions are good enough for Poland, they are good enough for our workers?

Mr. Lee: I get a little upset when hon. Gentlemen, such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), knock the wage levels in the tourist industry. The truth is that the remuneration packages in the industry are increasing all the time. It is being increasingly seen as an attractive industry to join. I remind the hon. Gentleman that no other industry is creating jobs at the rate of nearly 1,000 net new jobs a week.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's record of steady and modest support for the tourist industry is one of great success on which they should be congratulated? Will he, however, have a word with the chairman of English Heritage to press on him the importance of a speedy decision on the future of Stonehenge?

Mr. Lee: On my hon. Friend's latter point, either I will have a word with the chairman of English Heritage or I will ask my successor to do so.

Employment Training

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of ET placements in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

Mr. Nicholls: We estimate that more than 19,100 people on employment training in the Yorkshire and Humberside region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day.

Mrs. Mahon: Can I bring the Minister back to the quality of some of those placements and tell him of the experience of my constituent, Michael Pickles, who answered an advertisement in the Graduate Post for a qualification in higher management? He spent four months doing nothing and, when he complained, he found out that the course was for a BTech diploma that he could have obtained with 60 hours of correspondence learning. He has complained to the Minister's Department. Many of the post graduate courses are, in fact, rubbish.

Mr. Nicholls: I would give a fraction more credibility to the hon. Lady's account if she had raised it with me in correspondence. If she wants to do so now, I shall he more than happy to look into the matter. Mercifully, the hon. Lady's attitude is not shared by all those responsible local authorities in her locality. I have no doubt that she will be pleased to record that the local authority careers service is a training agent for Calderdale, but perhaps she would have disparaging things to say about it as well.

Strikes

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the ratio of strikes in the public sector to those in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: In 1988 the average number of working days lost per employee through strikes in the public sector was just under three times the average for the private sector.

Mr. Davis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects the public's perception when they see strikes on television because those strikes are invariably in the public sector, not in the Marks and Spencer or Sainsbury of the private sector? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that we should address that issue at its fundamental point and deal with the fact that it is the state sector monopolies that are causing the strikes and set about returning many of them to a competitive private sector role at an even faster rate than we are doing?

Mr. Cope: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in principle. As he knows, studies are in progress on the privatisation of British Rail. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that is obviously a longer-term issue than the present dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the ceremony to mark the arrival of his Highness the President of the United Arab Emirates. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet at Buckingham palace.

Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the borough of Poole on the award of a European flag for clean beaches and bathing waters? Will she remind those people who are leaving these shores for

polluted beaches elsewhere in Europe that the Environment Commissioner of the EEC has complimented this country and has said that no other country in Europe has a greater awareness of environmental problems?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the borough of Poole. I also thank the dockers of Poole for returning to work. I note the contrast with many less desirable resorts overseas. I am glad that the European Commissioner has at last congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the way in which this country is vigorously tackling its environmental problems, in contrast to the way in which the Labour Government failed to tackle them when they were in power. Under the EC directive, which we are now following, we have enabled the water authorities to spend £100 million per year to comply with that directive. Britain is the only European Community country with a programme to ensure full compliance in the 1990s.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us why, after 10 years of her Government, it is necessary to trawl Holland, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Barbados and other countries in a desperate search for trained teachers?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps because we have a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils than was ever the case under the Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister must be the only mother or grandmother in the land who does not realise that there is a great and growing shortage of primary school teachers and of teachers of science, maths and languages in secondary schools. She must also be unaware that her policies are making matters even worse. How can the right hon. Lady and her Ministers inflict on other people's children problems that they would never accept for their own children?

The Prime Minister: I tell the right hon. Gentleman again that we have a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils than was ever the case, or was ever thought of, under the Labour Government. Classes have got smaller and we have a better curriculum and, yes, we have flexible pay to enable us to attract more maths, science and physics teachers, in whom I am particularly interested.

Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time to make it clear that in the view of the Government, it can never be right to use industrial action against the old, sick and young—[Interruption.]—as is now happening because of the NALGO dispute? Will she also make it clear that it can never be right to be silent on such an issue, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are silent?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition talk about compassion, but some of the unions do not practise it when it comes to the point. I also notice that in the railway strike, two of the unions went through the proper procedures, one to independent arbitration, and accepted the results of that arbitration and their members are prepared and ready to go back to work. The third union, under the militants on its executive, did not. The question is which unions do Opposition


Members support—those who follow the procedure or those who do not and who are prepared to put the public to great inconvenience?

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July 1989.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bradley: In the light of the comments by the Junior Health Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, that the current financial crisis in the National Health Service shows that the figures are meaningless and misleading, may I ask the Prime Minister urgently to review the agenda for South Manchester health authority's meeting this coming Thursday, which proposes £1·2 million worth of cuts, the shedding of 100 health care posts and the option of compulsory redundancies? Will the right hon. Lady give assurances to the people of Manchester that extra resources will be made immediately available to meet the health needs of the mentally ill and the elderly of south Manchester?

The Prime Minister: Having allocated enormous extra sums to the NHS, the service is not in crisis. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that for every £1 that Labour spent on the NHS per year, we are spending £3 per year. We have made available £2 billion by way of additional funding, which was announced at the time of the Autumn Statement, and since then £204 million has been made available to cover costs arising from doctors' and nurses' pay awards, plus £40 million of additional funding. That is a massive amount of extra funding because under the Conservatives the economy is successful and can afford it.
As to the situation at the Withington hospital, about which the hon. Gentleman asked me, a 24-bed ward containing 21 patients has been temporarily closed, but the patients will continue to be cared for. Between 15 and 17 of them will be moved to other places within that unit. The remainder may be discharged, but only if the doctors are satisfied—[Interruption.] I have been asked the question. Opposition Members may not like them, but I have the answers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The remainder will be discharged if the doctors are satisfied that their treatment has been satisfactorily completed and that the necessary support services are on hand for their aftercare.

Labour Statistics

Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the fall in unemployment since June 1987.

The Prime Minister: Since June 1987, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom has fallen by 1,047,900 to 6·3 per cent. The number of people in work is an all-time record at 26,685,000.

Sir Michael Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that her statement shows that in the months ahead, the firm economic policies that have been

pursued by the Government will not only provide reduced inflation, but will do so at no cost to the greater opportunities for employment that now exist?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Our overriding priority now is to bring down inflation. That will ensure that we can maintain prosperity and continue to create more jobs because inflation in the long run is the enemy of more jobs. This is totally different from the policy of Opposition Members, who I understand are on record as wanting a less deflationary emphasis throughout the economy, which of course would lead to more inflation, which is a policy to which they are used.

Mr. Turner: Was it the Prime Minister's decision or that of her Secretary of State for Employment to instruct Training Agency managers not to give information on filled employment training places to Members of Parliament? What is there to hide? Is that not an infringement of the rights and responsibilities of Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's policy is to give as much information as he possibly can, particularly on training, where the Government's policies have been an outstanding success.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 8,000 to 1,812 at the latest count? Is she further aware that the main cause for that is the Government's policies? Will she ensure that the good work continues so that unemployment is eliminated completely?

The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend's constituency has a particularly good record. It had to diversify when a major plant was closed. The average unemployment figure for the European Community as a whole is 9·3 per cent. whereas for this country it is 6·3 per cent.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Would the Prime Minister be pleased if, after an 8·8 per cent. pay rise, her gross weekly wage came to only £105?

The Prime Minister: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is backing the National Union of Railwaymen in continuing its strikes? [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Now we have the answer and it is what we thought. Labour Members do not back the unions that followed the established procedures, went to independent arbitration and accepted the result. They back the NUR which did not follow the established procedures and refused to accept independent arbitration because it would rather inconvenience the consumer and the travelling public. As always, Labour Members are in hock to the unions.

Q.6. Mr. Irvine: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the volume and importance of European Community legislation increases, so the importance increases of this


House giving it proper and adequate scrutiny and adapting its procedures to enable it to do so? In particular, does she agree on the importance of enabling the House to debate European Community legislation before it reaches the Council of Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and that of many hon. Members on both sides, that a great deal of legislation is coming from the European Community in connection with the Single European Act. I share my hon. Friend's concern that it should be properly scrutinised by the House. Parliament is central to our activities in a way that it is not in some Community countries. My right hon. Friend the Lord President recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure and is discussing with the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation possible improvements to the present system. My hon. Friend's remarks accord with what I should like to see happen.

Miss Lestor: As of yesterday afternoon we, too, became a grandmother—[Interruption.] Would the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the team at St. George's hospital, Tooting which assisted in that rather premature birth, particularly to the doctor who delivered the baby? Ten years after the Prime Minister came to power that doctor, had worked from Saturday morning until the delivery at 5 pm on Monday.

The Prime Minister: First, I gladly congratulate the new grandparents. I am sure that the birth has given them great joy and will continue to do so. I have visited St. George's hospital, Tooting following an accident, and while there I saw the new emergency department. We are naturally anxious to reduce the number of hours that medical staff have to work and we are negotiating to that end. In fact, the average number of hours being worked is less than it used to be, so there has already been some improvement.

Points of Order

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions, I have become increasingly worried about the Government's practice of stationing a Government Whip at your right hand. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) stands at your right hand, Mr. Speaker, and nods approval at everything that the Prime Minister says. If he were wearing a wig, it would look as though you were nodding approval. I know your views, Mr. Speaker, so I think that you should deal with this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I take instructions from no one.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have seen the advertisement in The House Magazine in which an hon. Member offers himself for hire as a consultant. It states:
Hard working Back Bench Tory MP of 10 years standing seeks consultancy in order to widen his range of activities. Please contact Richard Alexander at the House of Commons".
You will no doubt wish to deprecate such a practice, Mr. Speaker. It is not the way that a Member of Parliament should conduct himself. Will you, from your Chair today, deprecate that practice?

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, that is not a matter for me. If any hon. Member wishes to widen his experience, he has a perfect opportunity to do so through the Industry and Parliament Trust.

Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in the 1970s I wrote an article in Labour Weekly stating that a tiny number of Members of Parliament were available for hire. The House had me up before the Privileges Committee and I was severely censured for contempt of the House, even though it was proved at a later date that three Members had offered their services for hire. I received no pardon or apology. It appears that if a Member writes an article such as mine, he is up before the Privileges Committee for contempt, hut when it is proved later, he gets no recompense.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Bennett: It is further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Speaker: All right, I will take it.

Mr. Bennett: You may have noticed an advertisement in The House Magazine two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, offering £8,000 for a secretary to work a 40-hour week, the advertiser having previously offered £6,000 and failed. Applicants were asked to contact "Simon". As Simon is the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), will he now explain why a member of a party that believes in putting up pay should offer such low pay for a secretary?

Mr. Speaker: I believe that we should move on to the debate on teacher shortages, but before doing so there is a Ten-Minute rule motion.

Waterloo to City Line (Privatisation)

Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to privatise the Waterloo to City Line.
On behalf of my constituents, I regret today's absurd disruption of British Rail by the National Union of Railwaymen which may overshadow the specific matter which this Bill addresses. I shall not attempt to comment further on the strike. Later, I shall make critical comments about the management of British Rail. I am not now trying to raise the issue of long-term restructuring of British Rail. The intention of my Bill is to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have a fair hearing.

Mr. Taylor: The intention of the Bill is to draw the attention of the House to the plight of a particular group of commuters, including many of my constituents, for whom travelling on a certain stretch of British Rail line is a daily, as opposed to an occasional, misery. I refer to the estimated 19,000 people who travel every working day from Waterloo to Bank stations on British Rail's underground Waterloo to City line, which is commonly and appropriately known by those who use it as "the Drain". As one of my constituents said, the passengers sometimes travel in conditions which would not be tolerated for animals by the RSPCA.
The Drain provides a vital rail link, carrying as it does those who have journeyed to Waterloo from all over the south-east to reach their places of work in the City. As this country's financial district has assumed ever-growing importance, so too has the Drain. Since the big bang, the number of passengers arriving at Bank station daily has risen by nearly 5,000. Yet the decline in service over the same period gives little credibility to British Rail's forward planners. [Interruption.]
For those lucky enough not to be familiar with the Drain, I shall give some details to the House. The line was built in 1898. The current rolling stock is only the second generation to operate on this route. It is of pre-war design and has been in use for nearly 50 years.
British Rail admits that the problems of running safely a railway with equipment dating back to the last war or beyond can temporarily overwhelm its capacity to cope. It says "temporarily", but in March this year peak hour services were cancelled for three weeks, when two of the four trains were out of action. When the service does work—between the constant delays, restrictions and cancellations—the trains run every four to six minutes and the journey time takes five minutes. Platform overcrowding at peak times is dangerous and leads to the necessary placing of large warning notices. The line has also variously suffered from flooding, fire, staff shortages and other mechanical problems. One of my constituents has written complaining that the Drain is an accident waiting to happen.
As the director of British Rail's Network SouthEast said in a letter to me only last week:
We are only too conscious of our failure to provide an acceptable quality of service on this line in recent months.
However, the problem has not arisen merely in recent months; it goes back years. For British Rail, the line is

both embarrassing and an embarrassment. However, British Rail intends to seek investment authority from the Secretary of State this summer for new equipment compatible with London Underground's Central line. Why not before? Because, British Rail claims, it is impossible within the constraints of a uniform fare structure in central London to earn an acceptable rate of financial return on the necessary investment, and it is only the use of cost-benefit criteria which permits the proposed application to proceed.
It might help British Rail's analysis if tickets were checked and collected. At Bank station yesterday, the two automatic ticket machines demanded "exact money only" for the single-fare 60p ticket. I purchased mine, but several others around me gave up. My ticket was never collected, and I retain it as a souvenir of British Rail's inefficiency. [Interruption.]
The deputy chairman of the London Regional Passengers Committee urged me in a letter to The Times recently to put pressure on the Treasury to allow British Rail's latest submission for capital expenditure for the Drain to go ahead. But I have little confidence that British Rail is the right organisation to control the investment or to manage the line. It is time that attitudes to, and management and ownership of, the line changed. Major new investment is needed and a strategic plan for the line is required urgently.
For example, can a new station be built at Blackfriars, midway along the line, so that it joins up with the British Rail station and the Circle and District lines? Can the line be extended to link up with the separate underground line between Moorgate station and Finsbury Park? How can the line cope effectively with Channel tunnel passengers arriving at Waterloo in increasing numbers from 1993? How will the line's use contribute to helping the east London transport study, whose conclusions are awaited?
The problems of privatisation of this line cannot be under-estimated. [Interruption] The onus lies on those who stand to benefit from the modernisation and extension of the line—the banks and City institutions whose staff use it, the docklands developers who are worried about access from various points in the docklands and the City of London corporation, which is interested in acting as a sponsor and has told me that it might consider acting also as a financial investor.
I challenge these groups to put to British Rail a proposal that it cannot refuse, even if it means British Rail handing over the line for a nominal sum. [Interruption.] British Rail must go further than being
quite willing to discuss further outside participation in the line"—
as if a bit more advertising is all that is necessary. Those who use the Drain call it "tarting up" in acknowledgment of the name of the advertiser on the outside of the train.
After all, if the line has proper investment, is extended despite technical problems and becomes reliable for the commuter, British Rail may attract more people into Waterloo, increasing its revenue. British Rail must not give the impression of operating the delaying tactics that some accuse it of doing in working with the private sector in respect of contracts for the Folkestone line, which will become an issue later this year.
This is a great opportunity. How it is structured is for others to decide. I hope that this enabling Bill will provoke an urgent debate and solutions. It is highly significant that there has been a constant barrage from Labour Benches to


what I have been saying. That shows a lack of concern for the commuters. Some 19,000 commuters travel from Waterloo to Bank every day. The Labour party cares not a jot for them, which is why the Labour party supports the NUR and its disruption of the services today. My Bill goes some way to alleviating the position of the weary commuter who is trying to earn his and the nation's bread. If that happens, and if the City institutions and others respond, my Bill will have been part of a worthy cause. I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Banks: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
It is easy for the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) to make cheap attacks on the railway workers. I remind him that the sort of wages that railway workers get are hardly likely to attract Conservative Members to seek a job on the railways. Conservative Members, particularly those who have a number of well-rewarded consultancy posts, should bear that in mind. I know that the hon. Gentleman gets a fairly sizeable chunk of his income from such positions. He is fairly open about it.
He is to be congratulated on moving the motion, and we are glad to have him with us. Judging by the list of outside jobs that he has, I am surprised that he has the time to be here. The list makes it clear that he should have declared some of the positions, because he will get some special benefit if the Bill were to be passed. He is involved in a number of consultancies which are involved in transportation work. At least he could offer his hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) some good advice, because he clearly did not have to advertise in The House Magazine to obtain all those consultancies.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Drain, as it is called—the Waterloo and City line—is in a fairly bad state, and I agree. But we do not need any lectures from him or from any other Conservative Member about the appalling lack of investment not only in the Waterloo and City line but in British Rail and London Transport generally in recent years, certainly since 1979. We want to see more investment in the Waterloo and City line and in London Transport generally.
For those who travel around London, travelling on public transport is dirtier and more crowded and expensive than on any other urban transportation system in Europe. That is not mere coincidence; nor is the fact that we spend less on capital investment and less on revenue support on our urban transportation system than any other comparable European city. The problems are the direct result of the Government's policies.
The rolling stock on the Drain dates back to 1940. With the exception of the Isle of Wight, it is the oldest fleet of British Rail rolling stock still operating. The additional safety precautions installed after the Moorgate accident, which ensured that trains approached the terminus at Bank slowly, together with increasing train failures, mean a more restricted service than used to be the case, and

service suspensions are happening all too frequently. We agree that that is the case, but the answer is not privatisation; it is more investment.
The hon. Gentleman must know that Network SouthEast is actively developing proposals to renew the trains and the signalling equipment to a common specification to that provided by London Underground's new tube stock. That would avoid the costs and problems associated with commissioning a special build of rolling stock to a unique profile, and make the provision of spares and maintenance easier. However, it ties the time scale for re-equipping the line to that for the new trains being designed for the Central line, and British Rail intends to seek financial authority from the Secretary of State for Transport this summer with delivery of new trains planned for the summer of 1992.
When the hon. Gentleman voiced his constituents' complaints, he did not once plead with the Secretary of State to hasten that investment on the Drain. That is the way to deal with the problems of his constituents who use the Waterloo and City line, not an attempt by the Arthur Daley tendency of the Tory party to get its sticky hands on some more public assets.
If the line were privatised, it would effectively be taken out of London Underground's central zone I tariff, and there would be premium fares, because many fairly well-heeled people and business people use that line. They probably could afford to pay the new fares that a private owner would demand, but many low-paid City workers such as clerks and cleaners also use that line, and they would be forced on to the Northern line because they would not be able to afford those new fares. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with all his consultancies and all his experience, did not ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for some more investment on the Northern line.
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. He has chosen this occasion for some fairly cheap publicity at the expense of over-worked and underpaid railway workers and commuters exploited by the Government, who have failed to invest properly in our public transport system. I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Drain to stay in public ownership, so that the only thing that will go down the drain will be the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 169.

Division No. 305]
[3.49 pm


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cash, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

 



Evennett, David
Page, Richard


Favell, Tony
Patnick, Irvine


Fishburn, John Dudley
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fry, Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gale, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Gardiner, George
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gill, Christopher
Rathbone, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Redwood, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rhodes James, Robert


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rost, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rowe, Andrew


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hannam, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Haselhurst, Alan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hayes, Jerry
Shersby, Michael


Heddle, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Holt, Richard
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Steen, Anthony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Irvine, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Sumberg, David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thornton, Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Trotter, Neville


Latham, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lawrence, Ivan
Walden, George


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ward, John


McCrindle, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wheeler, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Wilshire, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wolfson, Mark


Miller, Sir Hal
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moss, Malcolm



Mudd, David
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Norris, Steve



Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Alton, David
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clay, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Clwyd, Mrs Ann





Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Coleman, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cousins, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Meale, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michael, Alun


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Darling, Alistair
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morgan, Rhodri


Dewar, Donald
Morley, Elliott


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Doran, Frank
O'Brien, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alexander
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Fearn, Ronald
Pike, Peter L.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Quin, Ms Joyce


Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles


Flynn, Paul
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Galbraith, Sam
Richardson, Jo


Galloway, George
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Robertson, George


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rogers, Allan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, Jeff


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Graham, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Sillars, Jim


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hinchliffe, David
Snape, Peter


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Howells, Geraint
Stott, Roger


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Janner, Greville
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wall, Pat


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Walley, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Leadbitter, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Eddie



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Harry Ewing.


Madden, Max



Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your assistance? As I understand our Standing Orders, if an hon. Member wishes to use them to request an emergency debate, he should have done so by now. In view of today's grave events, could you intimate whether you would be minded to grant an emergency debate if a leading Opposition spokesman were to make a request for such a debate? Important though teacher shortages are, this issue is even more important. We have heard nothing yet about the Opposition's views. The country needs to know. Should an Opposition Member rise to his feet now and request a debate, could you please intimate whether, in view of the importance of the subject, you would be minded to grant that request?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that requests for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20 must be received before noon in my office.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will confirm that if the Minister who is responsible for these matters and who is sitting in his place wanted to make a statement on the strike, he is capable of making it. We do not need Conservative Members—the moonlighters, the representatives of the goose-stepping tendency—to tell railway men and women how much money they should be getting. If he has anything to say, the man who went to be educated beyond his intelligence should go to the Dispatch Box and tell us.

Mr. Speaker: I confirm to the House—

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewing: It is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have already heard the hon. Member on one point of order today.

Mr. Ewing: This is very important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a day on which the hon. Gentleman's own side has chosen the subject for debate. No fewer than 18 hon. Members wish to participate in it.

Mr. Ewing: As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Member if he insists, but I hope that it is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to you for listening to me, Mr. Speaker, because I insist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should explain that when I raised my original point of order I did so for your benefit. As soon as one Government Whip disappeared from your right hand, he was replaced by another Government Whip, the Scottish Whip. My concern is that Government Whips are now rehearsing for the television cameras. Every time that you are in focus, one of the Government Whips will be standing at your right hand nodding approval. If it continues, by the time the television cameras are here in November, one of the Government Whips will be sitting on your knee. That is the last thing that I should like to see. I hope that you will deal with the problem.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not see why you should apologise because a Government Whip supports the Government. It is quite obvious that the Opposition Whips, who can stand behind your Chair, do not support those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on.

Opposition Day

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Teacher Shortages

Mr. Speaker: No fewer than 18 hon. Members wish to participate in this debate, so I appeal for short speeches. Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to move the motion, I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for its education policies which have produced the worst teacher shortage crisis since the early seventies; and calls upon the Secretary of State to introduce an emergency programme of measures designed to halt the drain of teachers by improving their morale and rewarding them better, in order to guarantee that no child is without permanent properly qualified teaching this September.
A popular, well-supported London secondary school loses eight heads of department this week. Three of those people—among the best paid in teaching—are taking jobs outside education, because the money and the conditions are better. One is to run a market stall with her husband.
At a south London primary school, the head and all the teaching staff but one have resigned. Only a deputy head has been recruited. In Tower Hamlets, 500 Bangladeshi children have no school. Barking and Dagenham are considering the closure of 16 nursery schools to release teachers for children of primary age who otherwise would be sent home. Islington has already warned that there may be part-time teaching in September. ILEA is short of 638 primary teachers and 100 nursery teachers.
This afternoon, in the House, the Prime Minister boasted that a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils exists today than hitherto. In many schools, the proportion of teachers to pupils is none, and there may be no teachers in those schools in September.
Nor are the problems remotely confined to Labour London, as Ministers no doubt would wish. According to a survey by The Times Educational Supplement last week, Conservative-controlled Essex has 260 primary and 330 secondary vacancies—an increase of 150 in the past year. In the Prime Minister's Barnet, the authority has had to launch a major recruitment campaign in Australia and Ireland advertising 25 vacancies in primary schools and 56 in secondary schools. Hampshire, Kent, Bromley, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset and many other local authorities all report problems worse than last year.
Labour's own survey of 91 of the 104 local education authorities in England and Wales was among the most comprehensive yet. It showed that two thirds of local authorities faced serious concern about shortages—a figure compounded by the Daily Telegraph Gallup poll on 29 May, which reported that one third of teachers were trying to leave and the percentage among the best qualified teachers with the greatest experience—those with 20 years' experience or more—is 40 per cent.
The evidence of a more major teaching crisis than at any time since the early 1970s when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education is overwhelming, and is

undeniable to all except those who are responsible for the crisis—Ministers. Their response is simply to deny what everyone knows to exist.
The Secretary of State's deputy, the Minister of State, this morning accused me of scaremongering, and described teacher shortages as a myth. She told an incredulous audience at the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers:
We really need to nail this myth that teaching has difficulty in securing recruits and in retaining them when it does secure them.
In so far as the Minister thinks that there may be the odd local difficulty, or the odd blip, the fault lies with the local authorities. On 4 July she told the House of Commons:
It is wrong to say that the responsibility for the planning and recruitment of teacher numbers lies with the Government; the local education authorities are the managers of the education service".—[Official Report, 4 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 145.]
She was ignoring her responsibility for the funding of the service and for the pay and morale of teachers.
The message from the Secretary of State may be more oleaginous, but it is essentially the same. In April, he told the Select Committee on Education:
I am determined that the action we shall take will ensure that we have the teachers that we need, and I am confident that it will.
But the confidence of Ministers is pure bluff.
Still less than they care do they know. Behind their claims is a black hole of ignorance and self-delusion. There is one basic piece of information needed to make a judgment on whether schools may be short of teachers in September and that is the number of teachers who have handed in their resignations to run from that date. Resignations to run from September have to be in by 31 May. Three weeks after that deadline, I asked the Secretary of State a simple question: how many teachers had submitted their resignation by 31 May? The answer was extraordinary. The Secretary of State said:
The information is not available … The latest data are for the year ending March 1987."—[Official Report, 29 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 536.]
He then gave me the figures.
There are 2,565 staff in the Secretary of State's Department. There are 39 people in his press office. There are just 104 local education authorities. I suggested to the Secretary of State that he put just a few of those staff to the telephone. The Secretary of State obviously thinks that teacher shortages in other people's schools are a laughing matter. No wonder he wants to keep himself in ignorance.

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to give us the stuff we are hearing this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—when we have heard it all on the radio this morning? He did not have the courtesy to come to the House in the first place, but delivered his speech first on radio. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that I am not responsible for what is said in the Chamber, provided that it is in order.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman not regret the fact that, since Labour came to office in Lancashire, the number of administrative


staff in the education department at county hall has gone steadily up, whereas the number of teachers at the chalk face has gone steadily down?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I regret that. I regret that there have been so many impositions by central Government and so many circulars that Lancashire county council has had to increase the number of administrative staff. I also regret the fact that the Secretary of State has cut the capital building programme for Lancashire county council and that its rate support grant has been cut, so that the council has had no alternative but to cut the number of teachers.
The bluff and apparent ignorance of Ministers is now compounded by their surreptitious actions. They are afraid to admit to a crisis today, but they are desperate to avoid a worse one in September. Thus, the newspapers have been fed regularly with unattributable stories of ministerial action. On 7 July, The Times Educational Supplement wrote:
Education Ministers have spent months seeking help from modern language experts to help tackle a growing teacher shortage which they publicly deny exists.
On 3 July, The Independent reported:
Baker may recruit teachers in Hong Kong.
Scarcely a day passes without a report of another local authority having to send scavengers across Europe to Holland, Denmark or West Germany, on a near-fruitless hunt to entice their teachers to the United Kingdom to teach in an education service with the worst conditions and the worst pay in Europe. It will not be West Germany's best who come here, but West Germany's rejects.
Ministers have only themselves to blame for the crisis. They have been warned by local authorities, teachers' unions, parents and the Opposition, not least in the debate on teacher shortages on 2 May. What makes Ministers all the more culpable is that this crisis should never have happened. There is no absolute shortage of teachers in the United Kingdom. There are teachers everywhere except in our schools. For every teacher teaching, there is another, properly qualified, who is doing something else.
Why is there such famine among plenty, so great as to threaten the education of many children in September? Why do one in three new teachers fail to go into teaching the next year? Why do one in four of those who go into teaching leave within five years? The answer is simple: it is to do with morale and money. Without the high dedication of the teaching profession, the education system would have collapsed months ago, but Ministers trade on that dedication and disingenuously confuse it with morale. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts:
I think, by definition, that someone who is dedicated has a high morale".
The right hon. Gentleman knows that they are quite separate considerations, because his interim advisory committee and his inspectors have told him so. His specially appointed committee said:
We continue to be impressed by teachers' commitment and high professional standards; but morale appears to have been as low as we judged it last year".
In his report, the senior chief inspector of education has said that it is
of great importance … that teachers are not used as convenient scapegoats for all society's problems.
Too many teachers feel that their profession and its work are misjudged and seriously undervalued. No one

has more sedulously fostered that misjudgment of teachers, that undervaluing of teachers, than Ministers. The early speeches in 1986 by the Secretary of State were full of sly attacks on the profession, such as his insinuation in August 1986 that teachers were contributing to a "yob society". A report in Today in August 1986 said:
Education Secretary Kenneth Baker has attacked the poor quality of teaching in state schools … In some schools nearly one in three classes are taken by teachers who are not trained in the subject, he says.
That proportion has got worse since then, not better, as the latest secondary schools staffing survey shows. It has got worse not least because of the cheap and easy denigration of the teaching profession—so easily rolled off the tongue to get a cheap cheer before any Conservative party audience.
Morale has been damaged, too, by the manner in which the needs of the maintained sector have been mocked by the meretricious policies of the Secretary of State. Private school fees, of up to £5,000 per child, are paid by the state under the assisted places scheme, whereas the Inner London education authority, like other local authorities, is rate-capped when it spends less than half that sum on its pupils.
The Department of Education and Science estimates that there is a £3 billion backlog of repairs in maintained schools. Her Majesty's inspectorate says that one quarter of children are educated in buildings whose condition is so bad that it affects their schooling, yet the cash on capital repairs in many counties has been cut. More public money £10 million—has been devoted to a single city technology college in Nottingham than to the capital repairs and improvements in all the 1,175 maintained schools in Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire and Bedfordshire put together.
There is a school down the road from my constituency, Crawshawbooth in the Rossendale valley, where one class has 45 children in it and another has 50. The Secretary of State knows about this, because I wrote to him after I visited that school in April. Its needs and the needs of hundreds of other such schools are ignored, while the budgets for assisted places and for CTCs are increased handsomely. In some areas, the Secretary of State has cynically and deliberately refused to agree to urgent repairs unless the school concerned becomes a city technology college.
That is the truth of what has happened to the Bacon's school in Southwark, where the Secretary of State and the CTC trust have effectively blackmailed the governors and the diocesan board into making the school a city technology college with the offer of £10 million of taxpayers' cash if it becomes a CTC, whereas the Secretary of State refused to agree to £2 million if it remained a maintained school.
The Secretary of State may tell us, as he usually does, how well endowed his schools now are. Perhaps he will explain why so many schools now have to raise funds, not for extras but for essentials.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the subject of CTCs, will he reflect on one of the visits that he made earlier in the year to the Sylvan high school in Croydon—in your constituency, Mr. Speaker—which has been wrecked by the local authority's proposals for a CTC? Teachers are leaving in droves, 97 per cent. of the parents have voted against and the Secretary of State still will not make a


decision before the end of the school term. The parents will not know about the future of the school for the whole of the school holiday. What they do know is that there will not be the teachers to teach the children come September.

Mr. Straw: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In pursuit of a shoddy partisan policy, the Secretary of State has wilfully presided over the disintegration of what was a good school, backed by its parents.
The Secretary of State will tell us, as the Prime Minister tried to, that everything is lovely and that schools have resources like they never had before, but these days schools have to raise funds not for extras, but for essentials.
The headmistress of Balfour infant schools, Patters lane, Rochester in Kent, wrote recently to parents to seek support for an activities day. We read from her letter that the funds raised were not for extras. The money raised is to be used
to purchase some large items of school equipment which we need to help us deliver the English and Science National Curriculum to the children.
Flag days, sponsored activities, commercial advertising inside schools in Kent and charges for school lockers have had to fill the gaps—the gaping holes—left by the Government's neglect of the education service.
Let me warn the Secretary of State, if he needs warning, that the Education Reform Act 1988 contains 450 new powers of central state control, but powers mean duties on the Secretary of State and on the Government. The Government and the Law Officers had better beware that if there is an inadequate teaching force to deliver the national curriculum, Ministers, not local authorities, will face court action by parents for a breach of their ministerial duties and responsibilities to the children of this land.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman might like to put that question to the Secretary of State and to ask whether he has already warned his colleagues of the possibility of legal action if there are no teachers in schools. My understanding is that he has.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Gentleman has answered my hon. friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman) about Lancashire, where he and I both represent constituencies. This is an Oposition debate on teacher shortages. Conservative Members want to know what the hon. Member proposes to deal with the shortages. [Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh. They tell the public that they can do a better job than my right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hind: Let them tell the people and Conservative Members what they would do about it.

Mr. Straw: I will tell the hon. Gentleman that when he has understood the extent of the damage done by the education policies for which he has voted.

Mr Harry Greenway: Answer the question.

Mr. Straw: I shall. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asks in whom people have confidence. He

should bear in mind the results of the county council elections in Lancashire, where, especially in his constituency, the Conservative party got a pasting. On that result, he would not be in the House for a second longer.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty with that line. The only thing we know about Labour party policy is what appeared in the policy review. The Times Educational Supplement described Labour policy as having a Conservative look. The truth of the matter is that every policy set out there is a mimic of policies introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988. A considerable amount of the froth that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward today is intended to disguise the fact that, in all the education initiatives of the past five or six years, the Conservative initiatives have set the pace.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has not even read Labour's policy review or the response in The Times Educational Supplement, which was far more—

Mr. Baldry: I have it here.

Mr. Straw: No. The hon. Gentleman is looking at the wrong piece. He has been quoting from the news report; he should read the editorial that appeared the week we produced our document, which compared and contrasted our policies and those of the Government. One difference is that Labour Members' children attend state schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "So do ours."] I am talking not about the labourers but about the men and women in the Cabinet, all but one of whom have sent their children to private schools and who care little and know less about the condition of state schools.
In addition to the mocking of the education system by the Secretary of State, we have what the education editor of The Independent described yesterday as "system overload". There is one budget—[Interruption.]

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Oh, shut up.

Mr. Harry Greenway: You shut up.

Mr. Straw: There is one budget—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if Back Benchers on both sides of the House did shut up.

Mr. Straw: There is one budget that has been subject to no constraint by the Secretary of State—the budget for his publicity, which has increased by 3,000 per cent. since 1980. Schools are knee-deep in glossy pamphlets and ring files all signifying the further half-baked hasty changes that they are expected to implement in too little time and with too little money. Local management of schools, the national curriculum, school governors, open admissions and opting out are just part of the burden; in London, considerable additional uncertainty has been created by the break-up of the Inner London education authority.
The Government's Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions said in its latest report that it believed
pay to be a critical factor in morale, and in motivation.
The committee was constrained before its work began by a pre-ordained cash limit on its recommendations, which led its members to doubt that the proposals that they could make within that straitjacket would


secure the requisite degree of motivation among the generality of teachers at this crucial time.
No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us that the crisis has been got up by his opponents—by the press. It has, indeed, been got up by the press—not just by The Guardian and The Independent but by the Sun and the Daily Mail. On Monday last, the Sun ran a so-called "special" on the crisis hitting our classrooms, with stories—far from untypical—of teachers who have doubled their salaries on leaving the profession. The Daily Mail said, rightly, that the pay rise that teachers were given earlier this year was less than the rate of inflation, and that, it said, "just isn't good enough". That view was expressed again in an editorial this morning.
Teachers' starting pay—especially for those in London and the south-east—is far from generous, but the gap grows after five and 10 years.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I have given way enough.
The interim advisory committee pointed out last year that, after 10 years, the average good honours graduate teacher could expect a real-terms pay increase of only 56 per cent., whereas outside teaching the same person could expect a salary rise of twice that, or 110 per cent.
It will take some years following the departure of this Government before all the damage they have done to the education system can be repaired. "Children First", Labour's detailed policy document on education, spells out proposals for reforming teacher training, for providing new teachers with much greater support and in-service training, for a proper career structure for teaching assistants—

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I have given way enough.
We set out proposals for a general teachers' council.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
But a crisis requires crisis measures. First, the city technology colleges programme must be halted and the millions of pounds of public money—

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Straw: I have given way enough; I will not give way.
The city technology colleges programme must be halted and the millions of pounds of public money earmarked for CTCs must be directed to the immediate needs of state schools.
Secondly, an emergency programme to recruit and retain teachers must be introduced. That must mean an improved and nationally funded system of housing allowances for teachers in high-cost areas. It must also mean proper allowances for child care throughout the country to enable women—and some men—to go back to teaching when they have young children.
We need an interim pay increase across the country for all teachers, which I understand the Council of Local Educational Authorities is to consider tomorrow and for

which Conservative-controlled Essex county council has already called. Thirdly, free collective bargaining should be restored as soon as possible.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not. I am coming to the end of my speech.
Meanwhile, fourthly, there should be an absolute guarantee by the Secretary of State and the Treasury that no preconditions will be imposed—no cash limit—on the recommendations of the interim advisory committee.
Some of us know the anxiety caused to parents and children by the shortage of teachers, when parents cannot be told, just four days before term ends, who is to teach their child next term or even whether that child will have full-time schooling. The Secretary of State seeks to deny that there is a crisis. If there is no crisis, will the Secretary of State guarantee that, next term, no child will be without adequate, properly qualified, permanent teaching? There will be crisis enough in those children's lives if he cannot make that guarantee.
According to the newspapers, every Cabinet Minister is now looking to his future, but for this Secretary of State we should look to his past. The man who invented the poll tax and who suggested water privatisation is now hoping to clear off—cut and run—once again, to leave another Minister to sort out his mess, while Britain's children suffer from it.
Three years ago, in August 1986, just shortly after his appointment, the Secretary of State told Woman's Own magazine:
of course, I can make it better—if I can't, I might as well throw in the towel and resign".
It has not got better; it has got much worse. As one head teacher put it to me earlier this week, "It's far worse than when the strikes were on; there is now a real sense of hopelessness." Only for one group has it got better—the private schools. The Secretary of State has made himself the recruiting sergeant for the private schools. What makes his smug insufferable complacency all the worse is that he is ready to see the schooling of other people's children disrupted and put at risk in a way that he would never accept for his children.
In many schools, in many areas, the situation is now desperate. Britain's parents do not want to hear soft soap from the Secretary of State; they want action—an emergency programme of the kind that I have described. Britain's children deserve no less.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government for its coherent and energetic programme to tackle teacher shortages, notably licensed teachers and articled teachers; welcomes the increase in the number of initial teacher training places; notes the substantial improvement in teachers' pay in the lifetime of this Government which contrasts with the modest increase under the last Labour Government; and urges local education authorities to use the flexibility available to them to recruit and retain a sufficient and well-qualified number of teachers.
This is yet another debate on the important matter of teacher supply. The House is now used to exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself. I must say that I shall miss him when he is moved to other responsibilities on the


Labour Front Bench. It is about time that the Labour Front Bench was reshuffled so that it could have an education spokesman with original and constructive ideas.
This is the second time in recent weeks that we have debated this matter. It is one that merits further debate and it also requires proper action. In our previous debate I set out the action that the Government were taking and which I propose to take. Obviously, Opposition Members have ears, but they hear not—they did not hear what I said on 2 May. Obviously, Opposition Members have eyes, but they see not—they did not read in Hansard what I said on 2 May. However, over the weekend I took the trouble to read the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn in the 2 May debate. I spent 20 minutes reading it, and it was a completely wasted 20 minutes. The speech was negative. There were no new proposals in it, as there have been no real new proposals this afternoon.
Let me make it clear that teacher supply is a serious issue. We must get the teachers we need for our schools. We need good teachers, well qualified with the teaching skills to engage, excite and stimulate their pupils. I do not employ teachers.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: If I could just get further launched into my speech, I shall be glad to give way to my hon. Friend, because he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn to make the point that that speech lacked originality and ideas.
Local education authorities and schools have responsibility for employing teachers. The Secretary of State's role is to ensure that sufficient numbers of qualified teachers come forward for recruitment by the LEAs and schools.
On 2 May 1 spelled out all the measures that the Government have taken in the past three or four years. They amount to a formidable list. If we had not taken the action that we took three years ago, the position would be infinitely worse today. For example, we have introduced bursaries. The hon. Member for Blackburn used to sneer about this, but he is not sneering now. The bursaries for maths, physics, chemistry and technology teachers have arrested the decline in applications for those posts. When I extended the bursaries to chemistry teachers earlier this year, the decline was arrested and applications to become chemistry teachers are up 13 per cent. compared with the same period last year. Of course, that is not sufficient and there will still be a shortage of chemistry teachers, but the bursaries have none the less arrested the decline.
In addition, I have increased the number of initial teacher training places by 2,000. I made that announcement only a fortnight or so ago. I have also announced an education support grant of £4 million over two years to make teacher recruitment packages attractive—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Baker: I should like to get a little further into my speech, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. [Interruption.] Yes, I shall give way because I enjoy debate.
The question of teacher supply is vital. It is crucial. It is not helped by defeatism and talk of crisis. All that the hon. Member for Blackburn does is to seek to spread gloom and doom. He talks up the issue. If he is not careful he will turn a difficult situation into a crisis and I am sure

that that is not what he wants. I do not believe for a moment that he objects to the various measures that I have announced or to the other measures that we have taken in the past three years. The hon. Gentleman owes the House a more effective way of putting forward his own ideas for dealing with the problem of teacher supply.

Ms. Harriet Harman: rose—

Mr. Baker: I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who rose earlier.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to comment on one of the claims that he has just made. He says that he has increased by 2,000 the number of teaching places available. If that is so, will he explain why, winging its way to University college, Cardiff today, as I understand it, is a letter rejecting its bid to be allowed to preserve initial teacher training there in spite of the fact that it is consistently over-subscribed and that this year it had to close its application list at Christmas because of the number of students wishing to join even though it had a death sentence hanging over it?
What guidance has the Secretary of State given to the Universities Funding Council about which institutions are to be given the 2,000 extra places? Can he explain how a place as popular as University college, Cardiff, which could make a major contribution to solving the teacher supply crisis, has been cut off and will be stone dead in a year's time?

Mr. Baker: I have increased the number of teacher training places by a net figure of 2,000. Within that 2,000 are some adjustments as regards teacher subjects. Some subjects are being expanded, such as those in the technology and science area, and others have to be reduced. I will check the exact figures and the position of University college, Cardiff, and perhaps return to that matter later.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Closure?

Mr. Baker: Some courses are reduced, but overall there has been an increase of 2,000 teacher training places. We have to make adjustments because there is a surplus of teachers for some subjects and school courses and it would be absurd to continue to train people if there are surplus teachers in those subjects. We must be concerned about the areas in which there are shortages.
I shall now report to the House about where we stand today and give the overall position. I turn first to the pupil-teacher ratio, which the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned and which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also referred to at Question Time today when she scored yet another bull's-eye against the Leader of the Opposition. There are more teachers relative to pupils now than ever before. The overall pupil-teacher ratio is at its lowest ever, at 17:1. When we came into office—when the last Labour Government finished their period of office—the ratio was 19:1. This is having its effect on provision in schools. I remind the House that resources per pupil have increased in real terms by 37 per cent. since we took responsibility for education in 1979 when we came into office. That is good news and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will welcome it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way for a moment.
From the way in which the matter is presented by the hon. Member for Blackburn—and, I am sad to say, by some union leaders—one would think that nobody wanted to become a teacher. The plain fact is that about 27,000 people become teachers each year. That number of people find it a satisfying and rewarding profession.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Baker: I intend to give way as much as possible during my remarks.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will agree that what we have been offered by Opposition Members, in contrast to his own positive planning, are the banalities of a recruitment drive. Housing allowances are not a new idea. The concept of nursery allowances has been around for some time. As for no cash limits on teacher's pay, we have no idea how much the Opposition would spend or how they would target the money to produce recruits and better quality teachers.

Mr. Baker: That is true. The hon. Member for Blackburn has produced a vapid document containing his proposals for education policy, but he has not made the mistake of attempting to cost it because he knows that hidden in the document, along with various statements that have been made by his hon. Friends since it was published, are some extremely expensive commitments. Although the hon. Gentleman has not costed it, we are beginning to do so.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: I was pointing out that 27,000 people entered the teaching profession each year.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Baker: I promise to give way to the hon. Lady later, perhaps when my remarks come closer to London.
There was a survey in The Financial Times last week of the attitudes of university and polytechnic students towards various professions. The most popular profession was the media, but after that came teaching, well before the law, medicine and financial services. So there is a great deal of interest and commitment among people wishing to go into teaching.
The figures for recruitment to initial teacher training courses were particularly good in 1988, with the recruitment of young people into initial teacher training up by 5 per cent. over the 1987 level. Nearly 20,200 students entered initial teacher training last year, 1,000 more than in 1987.
In the primary sector, the figures for recruitment to initial teacher training have been notably good. Nearly 11,400 students were recruited to primary courses last year. That was 9 per cent. above the target that we had set. I am glad to tell the House that this year applications by young people to go into initial teacher training this September and October are 11 per cent. up on last year. That represents 5,500 more. On the secondary side, applications are up by just over 1 per cent., and on the primary side, they are up by 15 per cent. That is good news which will be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Straw: As things are so good, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to offer a guarantee to every parent that, come September, all children in Britain will have adequate and sufficient properly qualified teaching—yes or no?

Mr. Baker: My responsibility under education law is to ensure that there is a flow and good supply of well qualified teachers so that LEAs and governors can recruit and employ them. I am dischaging that responsibility under the legislation to ensure that the schools are staffed to supply the national curriculum. I have taken measures in respct of initial teacher training and in-service training to ensure that teacher training recruitment levels are higher than they have been for the last three years.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn said on radio this morning, and repeated at the Dispatch Box, that there was no absolute shortage of teachers. That is the beginning of wisdom for him. It is only the beginning, and we live in hope.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Baker: I will give way to the hon. Lady in due course. At the moment I am dealing with the hon. Member for Blackburn, who was right to say that there was no shortage of teachers. Apart from making it attractive for young people to go into initial teacher training, we must also make it attractive for the many trained teachers—the 300,000 to 400,000 who have been trained as teachers, and particularly married women re-entrants—to return to the profession. In the last three years there has been a steady increase each year. This year, about 15,500 former teachers will be returning to teaching.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way to him again immediately. I must allow a few hon. Members other than himself to intervene. Indeed, I probably owe it to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to allow her to intervene first.

Ms. Harman: Parents in Southwark will be shocked at the complacency with which the right hon. Gentleman appears to be treating the situation. Will he take this opportunity to guarantee to parents in Southwark that there will be sufficient teachers for all children intending to start school in September to have teachers in their classrooms, and that we shall not see next term what we have seen this term—junior school children being sent home for up to two days per week because there are not enough teachers? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that guarantee to parents in Southwark who are desperately concerned about this issue?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady should criticise ILEA for its complacency in inner London—[Interruption.]—and I will explain why. ILEA has responsibility for the recruitment of teachers in Southwark, as in other parts of inner London. Only in the last three months has ILEA produced a teacher recruitment package. ILEA has been in existence for 25 years. Only now has it produced a package covering, for example, creches—to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred—and making it easier for married women to return to teaching with better training.
It makes it easier for them by giving them greater credit for the number of years they have been away looking after their families.
ILEA has got around to doing that only in the last three months, and as a result I have some good news for the hon. Member for Peckham about teacher shortages in London. I have been chided in the past by the hon. Member for Blackburn about vacancies and particularly about resignations. He has always claimed that the vacancy figures for teachers, which are published each January, do not give the latest position because the resignations relate to the end of May.
The figures that we produce each January show that the number of' vacancies in January this year in the primary sector for the country as a whole were just over 3,100 vacant posts nationwide. That is out of a total of 171,000 primary teachers, which means that the vacancy rate is under 2 per cent. It varies enormously. Even in London there were authorities with low numbers of vacant primary posts—for example, Bromley, Harrow, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton—whereas in London as a whole there were vacancies for 1,300 out of 24,600 teachers, and the problem is more grave in the east end of London.
In the secondary sector—I am dealing with January; I will come to May shortly—the number of vacancies rose by 400 between 1988 and 1989 to 2,400, but that is out of a total of 192,000 posts, the vacancies representing 1·3 per cent. of total teaching posts. That is not an alarming proportion. Again, the problems were far greater in London than elsewhere.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Blackburn runs its affairs so badly that DHSS recipients and the unemployed come crowding into Morecambe, crowding out the schools there, so that my right hon. Friend's constituents and mine are deprived of the chance of going to the schools that their parents attended?

Mr. Baker: There is further evidence why Blackburn is so bad.
I wish to deal with the question of vacancies, because the hon. Member for Blackburn has attacked me about vacancies and resignations, remembering that resignations come later in the year. Vacancies were not at alarming proportions in January, as I have pointed out. What has happened since?
The hon. Member for Blackburn made great play of the resignations position, and quoted from a reply that I gave showing that the Department's figures for resignations are two years out of date. That is correct, because the figures are provided by LEAs late in the day. The hon. Gentleman wrote asking if I would ask my officials to telephone the LEAs to discover the resignation position. Ever willing to be helpful to Jack, I asked my officials to telephone several LEAs, particularly in London. They found that several authorities were unable to say what the position on resignations was. They had not collated the figures but said that they would send the figures to us.

Ms. Harman: Tory authorities.

Mr. Baker: No, some were Labour authorities. The position was largely as expected in the other LEAs. In some the position was no worse than last year and in others it was worse. The picture was patchy.
We had figures from eight out of the 10 ILEA divisions. Last year there were 1,908 resignations and at the end of May this year there were 1,439. That was a reduction of nearly a quarter. A figure of about 1,400 resignations is unacceptably high, but I say to the hon. Member for Peckham that it is up to ILEA to put forward its package. The package that it has now put forward is beginning to attract more teachers to ILEA appointments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that he accepted his responsibility under statute to ensure a good supply of teachers throughout his term of office. He has been in office for three years and the Government have been in office for 10 years. On his own admission, at the beginning of this year there were 5,400 vacancies. How is it that the Secretary of State has not been able to carry out his responsibilities?

Mr. Baker: In a teaching force of some 404,000, to have about 5,500 vacancies on any particular day is not a problem out of all proportion. A proportion of vacancies of about 1·3 per cent. in any large administration is a containable problem. We have put in hand a range of proposals which are attracting a record number of young people into the profession.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend put on the record—this should be borne in mind, considering what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said—that whatever teachers could earn outside teaching, they are now better paid in real terms than ever and much better than when the Government came to office 10 years ago? Will he also correct the hon. Gentleman's persistent claim that the Government have cut spending on education as a percentage of GNP, when in reality it has risen from I I per cent. to 12 per cent.? It is about time that the hon. Gentleman learned the truth.

Mr. Baker: The figures on teachers' pay speak for themselves. Since we have been in office teachers' real pay has increased by about 30 per cent. When Labour was in office it increased by 6 per cent. The Labour party cannot possibly claim to be the friend of teachers.
The position in Tower Hamlets has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn and in many newspapers. I recognise that there is a problem and I want to do what I can to help. Recently I met a delegation fron ILEA led by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has held discussions with the London boroughs. I understand that 200 or 300 children are out of school because of a lack of teachers. Some dozen to 15 teachers are needed to teach 300 pupils. That is alongside the Tower Hamlets teaching force of about 1,500. The problem is not incapable of solution. ILEA can take measures to make good the deficit. It should have been taking such measures for some time, but it has been slow off the mark.
This is not a question of money. ILEA has the funds to pay for extra allowances for teachers and to put together attractive financial packages to attract more people to London. I am told that, according to the latest figures, ILEA is not likely to spend its entire budget this year. It is not short of funds.

Mr. Straw: ILEA will cease to exist from 1 April 1990. Does the Secretary of State offer the same guarantee to all the successor London borough authorities, that they will not be short of money?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the rate support grant settlement, particularly for inner London.
In our talks with the new London borough education authorities, which are predominantly Labour-controlled, we have been impressed by their dynamic approach towards planning for education and teacher shortages. They have already developed their own schemes, which include attractive packages for teachers. Help with housing is particularly attractive. In the past, ILEA was distainful towards the London boroughs and was not prepared to talk to them about council housing and other such assistance for staff. Now the individual boroughs are putting together teacher recruitment packages involving council estates and housing support. That will be helpful.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is not in his place. I do not criticise him for that, because he takes a great interest in this. I wish to assure Tower Hamlets that I want to do what I can to help. The TASC unit in my Department deals with the promotion of teaching as a career and meets with ILEA to find solutions. Although it is late in the day, there is still time to tackle the problems of inner London. I shall do what I can to help. The Department will be willing, in partnership with Tower Hamlets or any other east end London boroughs, to support teacher recruitment campaigns and to advertise the new packages that have been devised.
Another measure will be of help to teachers in London. The hon. Member for Blackburn has been disdainful and attacked the introduction of licensed teachers in September. That scheme aims to attract people from other careers to come into teaching. I hope that the original criticism of that scheme by the hon. Gentleman and by the unions has now abated. It has been widely accepted not only by Conservative but by Labour authorities as a way of attracting more people into teaching. It means that people who have experience of higher education can be trained on the job. In addition, the articled teachers scheme will be introduced next year. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would welcome those schemes.
In recent years about 1,000 teachers from overseas have come each year to take up posts in our schools, throughout the country but principally in London. Their skills and expertise are welcome. In September, we shall be the first country in Europe to implement an EC directive requiring member states to recognise each other's teaching qualifications. Teachers from overseas will be able to gain qualified teacher status here on application. Some authorities have already begun to recruit in other EC countries. I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude to recruitment in Europe. He talked about sending "scavengers across Europe" and made an unwarranted attack on German teachers. A month ago the Labour party posed as the European party, yet it attacks the quality of teaching in our partner countries. Its first test in moving closer to 1992 has resulted in a disgraceful, shallow attack.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose

Mr. Baker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me, but I have given way many times.
From September we shall accept overseas qualifications of teachers from the Common Market and they will be given qualified teacher status.
We have some overseas trained teachers from outside the EC. It is a characteristic of many Australian and New Zealand teachers that they come to teach in inner London. They complain that although they are qualified back home, they are not qualified here. There have been protracted debates about qualified teacher status for them and I have considered how we can improve their position. Our proposal for the new scheme was originally that, provided they were qualified, licensed teachers would receive qualified teacher status if they underwent training for a year. In the light of our responses to the draft proposals I am happy to announce today that I plan to go further and allow LEAs and schools exceptionally to recommend experienced overseas trained teachers to become qualified in this country after only one term. That will be especially attractive to young Australian and New Zealand teachers.
I welcome this opportunity to outline once again the actions that I am taking to tackle the problem of teacher shortages. I hope that the House recognises that there has been a substantial increase in the numbers of young people going into teacher training. No profession receives as much in-service training as the teaching profession—about £300 million per year.
The hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that the Government had not put forward new ideas, whereas in fact during the past two or three years we have put forward a whole range of proposals. It is the hon. Gentleman who has failed to put forward any new ideas, and he has certainly given us none today. He merely asked for an interim pay award, but even that was not his idea—it was suggested by the National Union of Teachers. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), the hon. Member for Blackburn has become a spokesman for the NUT. By the hon. Gentleman's own definition, an interim pay award would not help the problem of teacher shortages. Any analysis of the problem clearly shows that it varies from one part of the country to another.
The hon. Gentleman did not quote the article in The Times Educational Supplement which said that there were no teacher shortages in areas such as North Yorkshire, Hereford and Worcester, the city of Liverpool and Walsall, which in particular has no shortage of maths teachers. We all recognise that there are shortages in the home counties and in London, but the hon. Gentleman did not put forward any ideas to deal with that.
The hon. Gentleman's response to our proposals has been simply to attack them. He attacked the plans for licensed teachers and articled teachers and wanted us to abandon them.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: No.

Mr. Baker: I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackburn has, at last, accepted the idea of licensed teachers—[Interruption.] His silence, I hope, conveys consent. As least the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) supports our proposals.
Over the years, the hon. Member for Blackburn has adopted a policy of plagiarism of Government policies. He has followed a policy of destruction. Does he believe that that will improve the morale of the teaching profession? What are his proposals to improve the morale of the teaching profession, which he claims so concerns him? He wants to abolish the remaining grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges and


to weaken the national curriculum. How will that improve teachers' morale? The hon. Gentleman has come up with a series of gimmicks—that is his stock in trade—the purpose of which is the exploitation of anxiety. Only the Government's proposals can deal with the problem.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Having listened to the Secretary of State many times, I know that the outstanding quality that he brings to our debates is his belief that no matter what is wrong, nothing is wrong. He speaks as though everything is wonderful in the best of all worlds. He pretends to have a grip of his subject and says that everything is all right. In fact, a large section of the press—not just the National Union of Teachers or the Opposition Front Bench—profoundly disagrees with him. Today's editorial in The Guardian said:
Our crippling, intensifying teacher shortage takes centre stage in the Commons today.
The right hon. Gentleman claims that there is no such shortage, yet he failed to answer the question of what will happen in September. He has given no guarantee that sufficient teachers will stand in front of the classes. The Guardian continued:
These problems are exacerbated by the increased competition from industry for graduates, the erosion of teachers' pay compared to other graduates, and the manifest decline in the morale of the profession.
The Minister of State is on record as saying that there is no low morale. Only a fortnight ago the Secretary of State, under questioning, also said that. Surely he is aware that, with one exception, every group that appeared before the Select Committee referred to the reasons for low morale in the profession and treated it as a fundamental problem. Only the group from the Department of Education and Science said that there is no low morale. The DES leading figure said that he had not noticed any low morale, and that view was endorsed by the Secretary of State.
Although endless warnings have been given to the Government, they have taken not the slightest notice. They are whistling in the dark and trying to bolster their courage by pretending that there is no problem. At the behest of the Opposition, the Select Committee decided to carry out research into the reason for teacher shortages. We had hoped to publish the report by the end of the Session but, unfortunately, that is not possible. Certain people do not want the report published that quickly. The Opposition want it published because it will confirm the serious problem of teacher shortages. Every member of the Select Committee is well aware of the problem.
Every time that the Secretary of State or his Ministers say that nothing is wrong, they get a great clap on the back from their young Turks—many of whom will be missing after the next election—because they are grovellers. Indeed, I see that three of them are sitting behind the Minister today. They never say a critical word to the Secretary of State, so nobody takes any notice of them anyway. All they do is grovel.
Many questions must be answered. Who created the teacher shortage? It is the fault of the Government, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State before him. For years they have been launching vicious attacks on the teaching profession. They have demeaned it and said that all sorts of things are wrong with it. The many quotes over the years are on the record. The Secretary of State refuses to admit that anything is wrong and that morale is low. Is

he not aware that morale is low because he has demeaned the profession? Students, some of whom may want to become teachers, read in the press of his constant demeaning of the profession. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, following such attacks, those students will want to enter the profession?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Flannery: The Secretary of State gave way many times, and on two occasions to the same person. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has fled the Chamber now that she has intervened twice. There is only a short time available and many hon. Members wish to speak—[Interruption.] Where has the hon. Lady gone? I do not know. She seems able to intervene on the Secretary of State, but I am not so successful.
All the interested organisations agree that there is a crisis. We visited Warwick university, whose education department said that there was a major and developing crisis—a view endorsed by the university's students. The education department of Manchester polytechnic, all the teachers' unions—even the Professional Association of Teachers, which is tame enough—said that. The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that the problem of teacher shortages was a developing catastrophe. He was pulled up for saying such a naughty thing, but he repeated it anyway. Such statements from all the leading organisations make it clear that there will be a serious problem of teacher shortage next September.
In the primary sector, any number of teachers who have taught for many years are miserable and terrified by the number of documents and the bureaucracy. Under the new Education Reform Act 1988, which is an educational disaster for this country, our teachers are being made to teach subjects which they have not taught for a long time. They receive glossy documents from their local education authority which is made to send them out by the Secretary of State, who takes the authorities to task for not taking certain action. However, he knows that the Government have rate-capped the local authorities so that they do not have enough money to carry out the work.
The teaching profession is grossly overworked, under-paid and undervalued. The attack which is being launched against teachers to ensure that they are not paid properly and to deny them negotiating rights stems from the top of the Government. Meanwhile, the Baker city technology colleges, which were to be paid for privately, are not being funded in that way: 80 per cent. of the money for them comes from the public purse.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ministers are totally out of touch with their own Conservative councillors? When a quite stunning and outrageous proposal for a city technology college in Telford was recently made, to the amazement of everyone in the town who knew nothing about it, the reaction of the all-party county council was reported in the Shropshire Star. The report stated:
County Councillors of all political colours today united to denounce the way plans for a city technology college at Telford were sprung on the county.
An all-party resolution was passed, stating:
no decision be made before the potential serious implications for education in Shropshire have been fully considered.


Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if the Government do not agree with us, it is time they started to listen to their own councillors?

Mr. Flannery: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been an all-round attack on comprehensive schools, which have brought more and better results in education than ever before in the history of this country. The Government hate that fact and have introduced the technology colleges which siphon off money from the state system and channel it to selected pupils. As was mentioned, the assisted places scheme takes about £70 million a year, and that amount is rising massively. That money is being taken from the state sector. The Government intend to build up the private sector which their children use and take money from our children. They are good at doing that.
As has been said, the Secretary of State has about 400 new powers which he uses as a diktat and lays down to the profession. Members of the teaching profession act as any reasonable professionals would after years of sustained attack, by voting with their feet and leaving the profession. The Secretary of State will find not teachers in Australia or Barbados, but from among the 400,000 teachers in the so-called pool of inactive teachers, which he has created in the profession.
It is utter nonsense for the Government to say that the teacher-pupil relationship is wonderful. No one believes that for a moment. The Government could make the position worse by sacking more teachers, but instead they tyrannise and demean them. The Education Reform Act is being severely questioned because of the lack of teachers, which is not admitted.
When a problem exists, the high road to its resolution is the recognition that it exists. The Government and the Secretary of State act as if there is no problem. If they do not act to set it right, they will have the educational state system round their necks. They will be on the fringes of a grave problem with which we shall be grappling long after the Secretary of State and the Government have gone. The Secretary of State should be sacked for what he has done to state education; and when he goes, he should take the Government with him.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: That was a sadly confused speech. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) believes that teachers are grossly underpaid now, what position were they in when the Labour Government, of which he was a prominent and senior Back Bencher, were in power? Teachers' pay increased in real terms by only 6 per cent. under the last Labour Government. We are all well aware that it has increased by nearly 30 per cent. in real terms this time round. That is an indictment of the bad economic policy of the Government which he continually supported when he went through the Lobby night after night.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I shall not give way because one matter on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough, is that many people want to speak. We have had many interventions and I wish to get on with my speech so that as many Members as possible may make contributions.
This has been a disappointing debate, mainly because of the silly motion in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others. It has not answered any of the questions and is grossly overstated. The hon. Member for Blackburn has missed a good oportunity this afternoon to get to the heart of the problem which is worrying many of his constituents: teacher shortages and potential teacher shortages in areas in which house prices are very high.
I fundamentally disagree with Opposition Members who say that teachers' pay is low in this country, per se. That is not so; teachers' pay is fair and reasonable in most parts of the country. It is low where it is quite impossible for teachers to purchase a house. It is a regional problem. I shall illustrate the problems which we have in Thames valley, where a small, modest, family house fetches more than £100,000 and a single, one-bedroomed flat fetches between £75,000 and £80,000. One clearly needs to be on a high salary, and to have saved a considerable sum, to be able to purchase such a property and service the mortgage on it. There is no incentive for any man or woman in the teaching profession to move from other regions of the country to the south-east because they cannot afford to buy a house there.
The problem is exactly the same for nurses, postmen, medical secretaries and ancillary workers. Teachers and nurses receive the same job satisfaction no matter which school they teach in or hospital they nurse in. Therefore, if they have a choice of teaching or nursing in the north of England where, on their salary, they can own a home and also afford a holiday and one or two other luxuries, they will do that. With the high cost of housing in the south-east, they can ill afford a house or flat in the first place and, certainly, can ill afford any luxuries such as holidays. The problem is particularly bad in primary schools in my constituency. In the primary schools in my constituency which I regularly visit, I find no male teachers. The schools are almost entirely staffed by ex-housewives returning to work after their children have grown up. Their husbands are on a considerable salary so their joint salary enables the couple to take out a mortgage to buy a house.
I pay tribute to those ladies, who are excellent teachers, but I think that the House would agree that it would be much healthier for a school to have both male and female teachers in its common room and a good mix of ages as well as sexes. That would be in the schools' interests, but we should be concerned about a shortage of male teachers particularly in primary, but also in secondary, schools.
There are many multinational companies in my constituency and many companies that have units, offices and plants throughout the country. A director, salesman or secretary is paid differently in the Thames valley than in Carrickfergus or Hartlepool because of the different level of house prices. We have to grasp this problem and solve it, but how do we do that? I was interested to hear the suggestion—repeated by the hon. Member for Blackburn, so it appears now to be Labour party policy—that if we ever had the misfortune to have a Labour Government again, they would introduce a nationally funded housing allowance for teachers. If housing allowance means supplying teachers with rented accommodation or council housing, that would be unsatisfactory because teachers, like nurses and everybody else, have a considerable desire


to be part of the property-owning democracy. We shall not attract teachers to the south-east if they own a house in the north and are offered only a council house in the south.

Mr. Andrew Smith: He did not say that.

Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is assuring us, as a Front Bench spokesman, that the hon. Member for Blackburn did not say that, we must assume that this nationally funded housing allowance will be a mortgage subsidy to help to pay for the cost of the house.
This is an interesting policy. I represent a relatively prosperous constituency in the south-east, and I would not sleep easy if I knew that the constituents of the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) were subsidising, through their taxes, education in my constituency. This is the one difficulty about regional pay in the public sector. Is it right and proper, where there is a need for higher salaries and mortgage subsidies in the public sector in the more prosperous areas, for these to be paid out of national taxation? If so, it means that people in the poorer parts of the country on lower salaries will fund my prosperous constituents. I hope that Labour Members would also not sleep easy if they thought that that way forward was to be taken.
Another way forward is to say that people should pay higher rates or a higher community charge in these areas. This has slightly more appeal. In areas with high house prices, it is reasonable to pay a higher rate or community charge so that teachers, nurses, postmen and other such people can get higher rates of pay. If we do not do that, we shall have second-rate schools in the south-east, compared with the regions. We already have inferior hospitals because wards are being closed and expensive equipment is not being used because we cannot get the nurses in the south-east for the same reason—they find it more agreeable to be nurses in hospitals in the regions, where they can buy their own homes.
Another way is better still—to ensure that there is not this great divide in house prices between the south-east and the rest of the country. I have been gratified, since I spoke on this subject some 18 months ago, to see the difference reduced, although it has gone nowhere near far enough. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in Sandwell in West Bromwich, one can still buy a house much more cheaply than in Bracknell, Ascot or Sunningdale. However, the move is in the right direction. While I feel deeply for those of my constituents who bought their houses when prices were at the top, before they started to fall, and who now have to service a high mortgage, I know that others of my constituents are breathing a sigh of relief because at last there is a possibility that their children will be able to own their own homes. Therefore, I welcome the fact that in my constituency prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in the past six months. That is one of the best pieces of news that we have had for a long time.
However, more private sector firms must be persuaded to move out of the south-east and into the regions, where houses are less expensive, there is a plentiful supply of labour, more skills in the labour force and cheaper office and factory spaces.
I was laughed at by my hon. Friends when, two and a half years ago, I said that in my constituency I was

encouraging companies to get out. There were gasps about that, but I wanted it because our economy is overheated, we have negative unemployment, skill shortages, congestion on the roads, problems in the hospitals and the potential problems in the schools that I have just mentioned. For these companies to be at their most prosperous and efficient, they should not necessarily be operating out of the south-east, because there their unit labour costs are high and they are not competing properly in the world markets. I am delighted to say that a number of them—British Aerospace, Racal, Ferranti, BMW and others—are moving out of the constituency.
Far from unemployment being created as a result of this move, plenty of people are waiting to offer jobs to those who are made redundant. If there were a better balance between private sector industries in the north and south, house prices in the south-east would come more into line with those in the rest of the country. There would then be less of a problem with regional pay differences in the public sector.
This is a problem that my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in the Departments of Health, Social Security and Trade and Industry will have to tackle. There are no easy solutions in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn. It is offensive to put the burden of increasing regional pay on those in the worst-off regions, so that they have to subsidise the pay increases of people in the best-off regions. I am loth to go down the road that I half suggested, of an increase in the community charge, but there must be some acknowledgement that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract teachers to our part of the world. If that is not acknowledged and dealt with, I fear that the children of my constituents will get a worse education than the equivalent children in Wales, the midlands, the north, Northern Ireland. Scotland and elsewhere. As a Member representing the Thames valley, I could not stand by and let that happen.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If one had had no other evidence, listening to the Secretary of State, one would have been persuaded that there was no problem. He said that the problem was not alarming, but was "containable". He was extraordinarily selective about statistics. The pupil-teacher ratio has come down, that is true, but is it acceptable that it should go up if teachers are deployed elsewhere? He said that 27,000 teachers had entered the profession, but was silent about how many had left. He gave no estimate of the shortage of vacancies now, despite having promised them, although at last he gave us the figures of vacancies in January—5,400. With the pupil-teacher ratio of 17:1, that means that 100,000 pupils had no teacher last January. It is probable that today the numbers are more.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Rubbish.

Mr. Hughes: That is not rubbish. It is true that these figures relate to ILEA, which is one of the worst authorities, but the probability is that in September, not on resignations but on vacancies, 7,000 children will not be taught. If that is not a crisis, and if after three years in office the Secretary of State is not willing to admit that it is, we have indeed heard a complacent speech.
So complacent is the Secretary of State that The Independent was driven to put the education editor's viewpoint column on the front page yesterday. He said:
Morale among teachers is so low that, according to one opinion poll, one in three is considering leaving the profession.
Dealing with a point made by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), he said:
Teachers' pay, which has fallen far behind comparable professional groups during the past 14 years and has clearly not risen in line with market demands, is the key to the problem.
Pay has gone up, but pay in the private sector has gone up much more. The reality is that people who might return to teaching or stay in teaching do not do so because they can do far better for themselves and for their families elsewhere.
Perhaps the most commonly held view of all, repeated in the article, is:
Mr. Baker's handling of teacher supply is not an aberration. It is symptomatic of his wider approach. Mr. Baker is strong on conception, weak on execution. He has a good eye for short-term publicity advantage, a poor one for underlying problems.
It says something about the working of the Department of Education and Science that the first time that it thought about discovering the up-to-date position was in May 1989. It was not until there were abundant signs of a crisis, not just in inner-city Labour-controlled authorities but in Tory-controlled authorities as well, that it bothered to ring round to find out just how severe the problem is.
We have heard many statistics and I do not propose to adduce many more, but the reality is that many primary and secondary schools lose teachers not just to jobs outside teaching but to higher-paid jobs in other authorities. Some authorities are desperately pinching teachers, leaving others short of people at the last minute when they cannot recruit replacements.

Mr. David Evennett: I and my hon. Friends have listened with great interest to the picture that the hon. Gentleman has painted with the help of The Independent, but how would he deal with the problem that he has outlined?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that, but first I should say that, if the Government have no ideas, they should not be the Government. The only new idea from the Secretary of State today, which I welcome and which the Minister of State will confirm that I was speaking with her about only this morning, was in relation to teachers from Australia and New Zealand and qualified teacher status. That was the only new idea, other than saying that the Department would help local authorities to recruit teachers. If it has not been doing that for the past 10 years, there is something wrong with it.
The consequences of the problem are practical, severe and immediate. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) intervened earlier. Many parents in boroughs such as ours in Southwark view with great alarm the prospect of what will happen to them and their children when the new term begins.
Those parents know that existing staff will come under additional pressure as they have to take on additional responsibilities. Some of them may receive a merit award,

but many of them will not. Putting more stress on the teachers who are there, many of whom already cover to prevent classes from being sent home, means that they have the problems of looking after the classes of other teachers at the same time as the Secretary of State is requiring them to take on further responsibilities under the national curriculum by way of assessment and so on. I predict today that the number of teacher vacancies in primary and secondary schools will be greater at the end of this year than it is now.
Many authorities are desperately turning to new graduates to fill empty places. Many schools are now believed to be taking a far greater number of teachers in their probationary year than before. That is short-sighted, because a new teaching recruit will not benefit from the good supervision that will make him or her a committed teacher, able to remain in the profession. As the Minister will know, I was critical of that issue last year. If probationary teachers do not remain in the profession, we lose the very people whom we should be encouraging to remain. They should be given the support that they need and the pressure on them should be reduced.
A war is being waged against supply teachers who have traditionally filled the gaps in the teacher service. If local authorities continue to pay supply teachers only for the hours that they work rather than by the day, their supply will dry up and matters will be far worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) wants to point out that in Wales—I realise that this is not wholly the Secretary of State's responsibility—the problem is predictably acute. The Labour party is not blameless. More than 1,000 supply teachers in West Glamorgan have had their salaries cut by 36 per cent. in the past year, a reduction of £5,000 per annum, from point 11 to point 4 on the scale, and that has given rise to protests. Of those supply teachers, 92 per cent. are women. The problem is compounded because not only are they on low pay but they are being discriminated against. I hope that the Labour party will not say that everything in their garden is rosy.
Many schools have relied on temporary staff and, over many years, many of those in London have come from Australia and New Zealand. They come here to gain overseas experience. The Minister will confirm that a New Zealand teacher who attended a debate upstairs confirmed that she was leaving teaching because the salary of £105 per week was not sufficient to support her. It is welcome news that such teachers will at last be paid more, but the Secretary of State should have thought of that many months ago.
Perhaps what is most resented by many teachers is the suggestion that they are now enjoying a number of special offers and attractions. In reality, most of them are not. It is all very well having new incentives by way of one-off payments or help with the house to catch new recruits or having incentives to bring back into teaching those who had left to do something else, but the biggest group of teachers are those who have stayed. They are the ones whom we need to hang on to, and many of them resent the special tricks to attract others. We need to spend money on upgrading the status and pay of all teachers in order to recruit and retain those whom we need in our schools.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall, although the hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise profusely for not listening to the start of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has made some interesting points. Is he, like me, in favour of regional pay and local bargaining? I represent a constituency in the south-east and I fully understand the difficulty of attracting and retaining staff there, a problem which does not exist to the same extent north of Birmingham.

Mr. Hughes: I am not in favour of regional pay, because if the teaching profession is to be properly structured, teachers should be adequately remunerated not only when they enter it but in mid-career. Until people in public service are valued and adequately remunerated, we shall continue losing them to the private sector, whether or not there is regional pay. If more money is paid to teachers in the south-east, their salaries would still be below those paid in the private sector. Of course it depends on the market, but, region by region, those working in the public sector are paid substantially less than those in the private sector. The fundamental problem will not begin to be addressed until those in the public sector—above all, teachers—receive an adequate basic remuneration.
Today, on what might be the Secretary of State's last opportunity to prove that he has any ideas of substance, he must have come to the House aware that the Select Committee's report, which we already know is exceedingly critical, is waiting in the wings. It argues for a substantial increase in funding, asserts that the teacher shortage is likely to have been underestimated, and acknowledges that teachers deserve salary increases and mid-career incentives. The evidence given to the Select Committee is known to the Secretary of State; it is irresponsible of him to deny its existence and not respond to it today. It places the education of many children at direct risk in September.
All that the Secretary of State does is meet with the unions.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: No, he meets the unions.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman, as I heard him explain on the radio this morning, meets with the unions and puts off democratic negotiations being re-established for another year. Although the Secretary of State argues that only one union pressed for an interim settlement, it is not enough to say that there cannot be such an arrangement. There should be an interim settlement, and there could be. If the right hon. Gentleman carries sufficient authority with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should be able to persuade his right hon. Friend to provide the necessary money.
It is crucial that, in areas of obvious and acute shortage, additional money should be made available in the form of special merit awards.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman means regional pay.

Mr. Hughes: No, I do not. It may be that there are shortages in central Birmingham, as in central London, or in other areas of the north-west and north-east, but there may be no shortages in adjacent areas, as the Secretary of State's figures tend to confirm. He cited the example of Liverpool, which does not have a shortage, although nearby areas obviously do.
The teachers' tune is an old one, but they sing it every day. It is that, unless they are properly remunerated from the start of their careers to the end of them, many will not be able to afford to stay in the profession. Unless we reward properly those whom we charge with the responsibility for our children's education at the most important time of their lives, we shall be failing in our responsibility as a nation. That is the failure of the Government after 10 years, and the failure of the Secretary of State after three years in office. They have only now begun to wake up to the problem, but still do not believe that it is anything other than containable or that it is anything to be alarmed about. That response is nothing but a disgrace.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Unless right hon. and hon. Members make briefer speeches, many others will be very disappointed by 7 o'clock.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the acceptance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State early in his speech that teacher supply is a serious matter. Earlier this year, I did not receive a similar response from other Ministers, and I am glad that the position has changed. Teacher shortage is not a new problem but one that has existed for many years, especially in respect of science, mathematics, technology and, in recent years, modern languages. However, problems are there to be overcome—and Ministers as well as the Government collectively are charged with that responsibility.
In 1988, 1·5 per cent. of all primary posts and 1 per cent. of all secondary posts were unfilled. That was an improvement on 1987, but those figures for actual vacancies do not include hidden shortages, where subjects are taught by teachers who have inadequate qualifications or who work in a temporary or part-time capacity when the job should preferably be filled permanently by a teacher in a full-time post.
The latest available statistics are unsatisfactorily out of date. The figures that I obtained are for 1984, and suggest that 13 per cent. of mathematics and 18 per cent. of physics teaching posts were filled by teachers having no higher education qualifications in those subjects.
I now turn to the example of Kent, in which I obviously have a particular interest, and for which I have up-to-date figures. Kent education committee's trawl of vacancies at the end of June revealed that 150 primary posts and 250 secondary posts were unfilled. Interviews are continuing and appointments are still being made, but that state of affairs, which is similar to that of last year, is still serious. I do not call it a crisis, but it is serious.
Of those vacancies, 34 are in mathematics, 39 in science, and 27 in modern languages. Such figures might be expected because there are shortages nationally of teachers in those subjects. More disturbing is that there are also 38 vacancies in English and 29 in physical education, which many people think are not shortage areas.
The situation in Kent is not as bad as it is in Essex, and it is comparable to that of one year ago, but I emphasise that it is still serious. I hope that that point is fully appreciated. The situation in Kent bears exactly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire,


East (Mr. MacKay). House prices and other factors that bear on the cost of living create particular problems in the south-east and London.
The number of candidates interviewed for unfilled posts is markedly down. Sometimes they number only one or two for each vacancy at all levels—from the most junior to headships. It may be argued that this demonstrates that there are good career prospects for teachers, but it also reveals that education authorities have a limited choice of candidates for any particular vacancy.
Kent has taken several steps. It provides a range of mortgage packages and is flexible on removal allowances. It also provides creche facilities. Those initiatives are constructive and helpful but, against an overall shortage in certain subjects, such benefits represent only a short-term attraction, as surrounding education authorities rapidly offer the same incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East made the point that salaries outside the profession, in commerce and industry, have a direct bearing on the shortage.
The recruitment of licensed or articled teachers would help. It is beyond belief that this practical step to attract people from outside the profession was vehemently opposed by the Opposition and by the trade unions. I am delighted that a different view now appears to prevail,—a practical view and one that can benefit our children. Licensed and articled teachers are not, however, a panacea; they may deal with only 5 or 10 per cent. of the identified shortfall.
Improved pay is necessary, and, at the right time, the restoration of the pay negotiating machinery—to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is committed—will be helpful. Above all, teachers need to regain the standing of their own profession, and to an extent that is in their own hands. I am not critical of most of the profession; I hold teachers in high regard, considering that they perform a difficult and enormously worthwhile job, often in trying circumstances. Nevertheless, they have done appalling damage to their standing through strike action.
Perhaps most important is the need to give education authorities the opportunity to arrange for regional pay to reflect the different costs of living in various parts of the country. That is what the private sector does, and I think that the public sector must, increasingly, do the same.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I could weep over what is happening to the teaching profession. I was a member of that profession for more than 20 years, and I only wish that the Government realised what they are doing to it, and have been doing to it for the past 10 years. Morale is at its lowest ebb; teachers are disillusioned and dejected. No doubt they will feel even more depressed in the morning, when they read what has been said today by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members.
Why are teachers in this state? They have been rubbished by the Government to such an extent that they feel they are no longer in a worthwhile profession. Their pay is extremely low compared with that of others in the private sector, and pay, of course, is an important aspect

of anyone's life. Dedication is all very well, but teachers who are not paid enough to eat and live properly cannot be expected to exist on dedication.
Moreover, teachers' work load has increased considerably over the past few years, and—especially in view of the enforcement of the Education Reform Act 1988—is still increasing daily. They are, however, receiving no further remuneration or other help.
We constantly hear the claptrap uttered by the Secretary of State and his officials. They claim that morale is high and that the problems are being exaggerated, but they are the only people to do so. Whom have they been talking to? Do they ever go into schools and talk to the teachers? Whichever schools I visit and whichever teachers I consult, I always hear the same story of low morale, deep depression and extreme anger at what the Government are doing. The Secretary of State would have to be a contortionist to do some of the things that teachers have told me to tell him to do.
Teachers are indeed dedicated, but dedication must not be mistaken for high morale. Clearly the Secretary of State does not understand, or rather, he refuses to do so. More and more teachers are leaving the profession, and that bastion of Socialism The Daily Telegraph tells us that nearly a third of those in the profession want to get out. That, of course, makes the current shortage even more serious. Between 35 and 40 per cent. of those who begin training do not enter the profession, and it is entirely unacceptable that 20 to 25 per cent. of those working for a postgraduate certificate of education do not even begin teaching.
The introduction of the national curriculum, which has received few extra resources, has led to more shortages—which, incidentally, will jeopardise the Secretary of State's dream of its success. As well as the general teacher shortage, there are glaring specific shortages in subjects such as maths, science, foreign languages, English, business studies and information technology. There are also regional shortages, particularly in London. The lack of teachers has meant no education at all for some, and partial education for others.
The shortage is having a knock-on effect on the recruitment of educational psychologists, who must be recruited solely from the teaching profession. If the implementation of the Education Act 1981 is to continue successfully, and if the 1988 Act is to function to the benefit of those with special educational needs, we must attract suitably qualified teachers into the psychology service. Recruitment is already low, for exactly the same reasons as the low recruitment in the teaching profession—poor pay and an increased work load.
The Government do not wish to accept that there is a major problem, because they know that if they did they would have to provide increased resources. The Secretary of State is being deliberately complacent, claiming that the problems of low morale and shortages have been exaggerated. If he really believes that, he should quit, because he obviously cannot see beyond the nose on his face. But the Secretary of State is not daft: we all know that. He knows the position as well as anyone. If he admits the truth, he will have to spend more money—and we all know what the Prime Minister would think of that, and the likely effect on the right hon. Gentleman's future career.
As a member of the Select Committee on Education, which has been considering teacher shortages, I regret the


recent leaks in the press. I hope, however, that certain Conservative Members will not use them as an excuse to ensure that a report is not published very soon. Such a report, giving the facts about the shortage, would be politically sensitive and damning to the Government, but if that excuse is used it will he a disgrace—and the country will know very well why it has happened.
If the Government deny that low morale and staff shortages are causing major problems in the education system, they are alone in doing so. Their views are being rejected, not only by the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Head Masters/Union of Women Teachers, but by organisations that support them, such as the Secondary Heads Association, the National Union of Head Teachers and even the HMIs.
Virtually every local education authority is facing teacher shortages. The problem is getting worse. Why is that so? More pupils are entering schools but the number of graduates who are leaving universities and polytechnics is declining. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Oh, yes, they are. The market for graduates is highly competitive. We should be tempting them into the teaching profession, but their salaries are far too low and their salary increases are well below the rate of inflation. How, therefore, can we expect graduates to enter the teaching profession? It cannot hope to compete. We cannot wait until there is a Labour Government. Action must be taken now.
What action ought we to take? A national monitoring body should be established, consisting of Government representatives and also of representatives of local authorities, teachers' organisations, parents, business interests and the community. Its task would be to advise on teacher supply and demand and also on initial and in-service training, taking into account developments in education—for example, the national curriculum. Action must be taken now to tackle the immediate shortages. The only readily available supply of teachers is the pool of inactive teachers. They should be encouraged to return to the profession. Many of them left it because of family commitments.
Local education authorities should be asked to provide creche, nursery and extended day-care facilities. Up-to-date refresher courses ought to be provided. Flexible hours should be introduced, which might involve job sharing. The only difficulty is that local authorities have not been provided with the resources to introduce these facilities. That is a central Government responsibility. They must provide the resources.
Conservative Members have referred to the introduction of regional pay awards. We reject that suggestion. The introduction of regional pay differentials would only lead to the shortages being shifted around. The flexibility to deal with teacher shortages already exists. They can be overcome by means of incentive allowances.
Initial teacher training will continue to be the main route into teaching. The first priority is to make a career in teaching sufficiently attractive to recruit a large number of graduates. That must involve a significant increase in teachers' pay and improvements in their career prospects, perhaps by means of changes to the incentive allowance structure. However, the local education authorities have not been provided with the money to bring about those changes. Central Government must provide the resources.
New routes into the profession must be opened up. We must provide for mid-career changes. However, we reject the Secretary of State's proposal for licensed teachers.
That would lead to a dilution of the profession. I accept that more graduates could be recruited locally. Family ties and other responsibilities mean that they are unlikely to be able to uproot themselves for a year in order to go to university, having been provided with a grant.
However, their practical teaching experience could be gained in a local school, which could be combined with regular release to a local college for professional training. They could be paid an unqualified teacher's salary. Their professional training would lead to a qualification that was equivalent to the postgraduate certificate of education. Their in-school practical experience could be supervised by a teacher in the classroom who would be with them all the time. They would be in addition to, not an alternative to, the school's normal complement of teachers.
Teachers' negotiating rights must be re-established in line with the International Labour Organisation's conventions, if a start is to be made on improving morale in the teaching profession. Teaching as a profession must be made more attractive by ensuring that adequate resources and equipment are available and also by ensuring that there is an attractive, high-quality environment. Only the Government can provide the money to pay for it. While the Government refuse to analyse the scale of the problem, they cannot hope to tackle it. Anything they do is likely to be inadequate.
Unless the Government listen to what is said in the debate and take notice, teacher shortages will remain and will increase. Teaching morale will grow even worse and state education will deteriorate. I hope that the Secretary of State does not want that to happen, but sometimes I wonder. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is moved from education in the reshuffle and that he will be given the chairmanship of the Tory party, where he will do to the Tory party what he has done to education.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may be convenient if I were to say that the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.35. If hon. Members were to speak for 10 minutes each, I should be able to call three of them. If they spoke for less than 10 minutes, I might be able to call even more.

Mr. James Pawsey: I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It lacked his usual constructive and positive approach. He seemed to talk down an honourable profession and to overstate his case. However, I agreed with him that most teachers are dedicated. That is entirely right.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reminded me of a bra for a teenager—small, unformed and with very little point. The real reason for this second debate on teacher shortages is that the first time around the Opposition made no impact at all. They are now coming back for a second bite at the cherry, but I suspect that they will be no luckier than they were last time. Their choice of subject tells us more about their lack of imagination in choosing subjects for Supply days than anything else.
I found it particularly significant that the hon. Member for Blackburn refused to give way on the question of teachers' pay. I give him the opportunity now, if he wishes


to intervene, to tell the House precisely what are his party's intentions on teachers' pay. Would he increase teachers' pay by 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent.? As this is an Opposition Supply day, I feel that they have a duty to the House to answer that question. The teachers of this country are waiting to hear what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about teachers' pay. If he wishes to intervene, I shall willingly give way.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman expects there to be a Labour Government following the defeat of the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The answer is that the decisions that we make then will depend on the economic mess that has been left by the present Government. Support for the Conservative party by teachers has fallen to an all-time low of 14 per cent. On education, Labour has a 10 per cent. lead among teachers, parents and others. They know that Labour has a far better approach to education than the Conservatives.

Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that when the teachers of this country read that answer they will realise that the hon. Gentleman was unable to come up with a positive figure on teachers' pay. When invited to do so, he positively refused to give a specific figure. The teachers will draw their own conclusions.
There is a slight difference between the two debates. When we last discussed the subject we took into account only teachers' pay. The debate has been broadened today to take into account teachers' morale. There is some evidence of disquiet. When we debated the matter 11 weeks ago I remember saying that the overwhelming majority of teachers are committed to their profession and to the young people in their charge and that their remuneration should be commensurate with their responsibilities. I agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham about that.
I have been saying for some years that the teaching profession plays a substantial part in the education, moulding and development of our young people. Their role is second only to that of parents, but I do not believe that their importance is fully recognised by society. Responsibility for violence and indiscipline can often be traced back to the home and school. We are now reaping the benefit of the free expression and empathy teaching of the 1960s and 1970s.
The strikes and disruption of two and more years ago seriously undermined the status of the teaching profession, a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). The standing of teachers has been much reduced, particularly when on television parents could see members of the profession shambling through the streets, carrying placards which, frankly, were illiterate, taking industrial action organised by the trade unions. Parents were not impressed by teachers leaving classes and taking time off which resulted in schools being closed and pupils sent home.
Understandably, the reputation of the profession suffered, the esteem in which teachers were held has fallen, and with it their morale. One hopes that that is in the past and, as I said earlier, the majority of teachers are committed to their profession and to the children in their

charge. Again I ask my right hon. Friend to persuade the Treasury to be more generous with a pay settlement this year than in the recent past.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the amendment in his name and in the names of his ministerial colleagues. It is significant that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his name to that amendment. I hope that he understands and appreciates the need to increase the funding available for teachers. There is another reason why the Treasury should loosen the purse strings. Teachers are no longer able to negotiate pay or conditions. That option has been removed, so a pay settlement should be more generous. We should show teachers that they have not lost through the abolition of Burnham—rather they should be seen to have gained.
In regard to numbers of teachers, the pupil-teacher ratio of 17:1 is the best ever and there have been improvements in class size, with the number of pupils taught in classes of 31 or more having fallen by an average of more than 10 per cent. Having said that, local education authorities are increasingly able to help themselves. My own local education authority of Warwickshire is doing a great deal to keep in touch with inactive teachers and seeking to bring back to the profession those women who left it to have families. That point was made by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. However, those returning to the profession need more support and training. When the Minister of State replies to the debate, she may wish to refer to that specific point.
Clearly, there is a substantial reservoir of teacher talent in society which should be brought back into the schools where it can do most good. But it is important to get teacher numbers into perspective. We should remember that last year only 1·5 per cent. of all primary posts and 1 per cent. of all secondary posts were unfilled. That is fewer than in 1987. I was interested that the Universities Funding Council said earlier this year:
It is pleasing to note that in 1988, after a slight dip in 1987, the figure for qualified students known to have obtained a teaching post in the United Kingdom returned to its normal level (75·1 per cent.): this was despite the increase in output.
The Opposition believe that they have discovered an issue out of which they might make some cheap political advantage. Not for the first time, they are wrong—they were wrong last time and they are wrong again today.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Having heard the Secretary of State's speech, once more we can give him 10 out of 10 for complacency, but when it came to recognising the nature of the problem, he attempted to brush it aside as something of little or no consequence. According to the Secretary of State, if there was a problem, the ultimate responsibility lay with the local education authorities. He told us grandly that he trained the teachers and it was up to the local authorities to employ them. Rather like the way in which the Secretary of State for Employment has reduced unemployment artificially, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dearly love to take mortgage calculations out of the retail price index, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is fiddling with the problem.
The problem first became serious in London, but there is plenty of evidence that it is spreading to other local authority areas. In Oxfordshire and Devon, local education authorities are experiencing serious shortages,


although hon. Members might think that those places would have sufficient attraction for teachers. The city of Birmingham has more than 600 vacancies in September—350 in the primary sector and 264 in the secondary sector, of which more than 40 are for English. Those places probably will not be filled in September. There is a great likelihood that the problem in Tower Hamlets and Southwark, where pupils are not getting full-time education, will spread to other parts of the country.
The problem is not simply particular areas suffering teacher shortages; it is much more widespread in certain subjects. The Secretary of State boasted that it was his duty to provide training for teachers and that there were more teachers entering training than ever before. But he did not tell us that, in certain subjects, the DES targets in 1988 were well below the requirement for the subjects in which the shortages were most serious. For example, in mathematics there was a 27 per cent. shortage of students entering the PGCE course. In physics, the figure was 23 per cent., in chemistry 42 per cent., in craft, design and technology 22 per cent., and in modern languages 14 per cent. There may be more graduates entering teacher training but in certain critical subjects the DES targets are not being met, and, by definition, the existing problem is bound to become worse.

Mr. Dalyell: Figures from the Royal Society of Chemistry suggest that in July 1987 there were 669 applications and in July 1989 there were only 540. The Royal Society of Chemistry has every reason to be extremely concerned.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which underline exactly what I have been saying about the failure of the DES to get teachers into training in certain critical subjects.
That is not the end of the story. More graduates and more students are taking the BEd route into teacher training, but a large number of them are not completing the courses. There is a 25 per cent. drop-out rate for the BEd. Thankfully it is lower for the PGCE—only 10 per cent.—but there is a drop-out rate. The Secretary of State expressed no concern about that and boldly trumpeted the fact that more men and women were entering teacher training of one sort or another. When those teachers are trained, one third of them in the first year do not go into teaching, so that is a further dampening of the glowing reports on those going into training by the Secretary of State. Let us not divert ourselves from the fact that, whatever figures the Department of Education and Science comes up with, the problem is getting worse.
The Secretary of State did not have a great deal to say either about pay in the profession. We need to examine that point specifically. After all, his Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions said in its last report, when it had been given a limit of £385 million:
we have found the £385 million limit on the Committee's recommendations for 1989–90 to be gravely constraining.
The committee realised the problem and knew then that the limit would cause problems in arriving at a settlement.
In its report last year, the Committee told the Secretary of State:
We can do no more than urge the Secretary of State to consider further how much he is prepared to make available to secure the willing co-operation of all teachers.

Conservative Members should not be asking us how much we shall pay the teachers. We are not able to pay them now. It is their own Secretary of State who has that role and duty, and he is the person who should be asked how much he is prepared to pay teachers in the coming year.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): He has already done it.

Mr. Griffiths: Although the Minister says that the Secretary of State has already done it, I have heard no global figure or promise of a percentage. If there are such figures, I should be interested to learn of them afterwards.
We are told in glowing terms that teachers have received a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) pointed out, it is not how much teachers have received, but the comparison with other graduates that counts. The Financial Times recently carried out a survey, dividing the professions and industry into 11 different sectors. In 1988, the starting pay for the public services, which included teachers, was at the bottom of the scale. At the end of the first year, it was still at the bottom, as it was at the end of the third year. At the end of the fifth year, graduates in the public service had, on average, managed to pull themselves up to eighth place in the league.
As for the development of salaries, a graduate in teaching after five years would expect his salary to he 40 per cent. higher, whereas a graduate outside teaching would expect his salary to be 70 per cent. higher. After 10 years, the salary of a graduate in teaching would be 56 per cent. higher, whereas a graduate outside teaching would have more than doubled his salary. Pay is critical and fundamental for such reasons.
The interim advisory committee said in its last report:
We continue to be impressed by teachers' commitment and their high professional standards; but morale appears to be low as we judged it to be last year. We believe pay to be a critical factor in morale.
The committee spelled out its views clearly, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond.
I want to refer to my own local education authority, the county of Mid Glamorgan, and the problem of teacher shortages in the context of the introduction of the national curriculum. Although the Secretary of State has announced several initiatives which should make some small impression on the problem, there will still be significant problems in Wales in, for example, the introduction of the teaching of the Welsh language. My own local authority is well known in Wales as one of the foremost promoters of bilingual education. It found, in a survey of its schools, that almost 500 teachers were unable to teach Welsh, but many of them were willing to undertake training so that they could teach the language. However, the amount provided by the Welsh Office for in-service training for Welsh language teaching in the county of Mid Glamorgan was about one quarter of what the county hoped to receive. Obviously, there is a need for an increased commitment of resources for the challenges to be met.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): We are spending some £233,000 this year on in-service teacher training in the Welsh language. We shall he spending a total of £1·2 million over the next three years.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that intervention. However, he will be aware that he provided me with those figures in a written answer only the other day. Despite the £233,000, and despite the £1·2 million over the next three years, there will be barely enough to touch the real problem. That problem is repeated throughout education in England and Wales. The resources do not meet the problems.
A survey of science teaching in Mid Glamorgan secondary schools showed that that one county alone needed about 80 more teachers. If that figure were repeated across the United Kingdom—the position in Mid Glamorgan is likely to be better than in most other places, because the problem of teacher shortages is not as severe in Wales—one would see that the Government are not providing sufficient resources to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister of State will outline clearly what she considers the nature of the problem to be and how the Government's resources will deal with it.

Mr. David Evennett: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts; but, together with his hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who also serve on the Select Committee, his analysis is wrong and his solutions, precious few though they are, are also wrong. I also want to correct the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that the Select Committee was about to publish a report. The report has not yet been agreed, so he can believe it to be critical only as a result of press speculation, not fact. Until the report has been agreed by the members of the Select Committee, it cannot be critical.
We can all agree that there is a problem of teacher supply. The reasons for that are many and varied and the blame cannot be put at any one door. The Opposition motion and the support for it are far too negative and simplistic. We know that there is a shortage of teachers in certain parts of Greater London and we know that there are shortages in certain key subjects. But emotive words such as "crisis" are not only untrue, but do not help. We are not numerically short of teachers. If one considers the number in the pool of inactive teachers, we would have no problem if we could bring them back into the profession. We should be exploring the possibilities of job sharing or part-time work. We should consider packages to encourage people to move into teaching shortage areas.
The reasons for the shortages are many and varied. We have discussed them at great length in the Select Committee and in the Chamber today. Morale, pay, career structure, professionalism, the constant re-organisation of schools in the 1970s and the decline in the value that the public give to education and the education service all play a part. The Government, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are to be congratulated on several important innovations during my right hon. Friend's term of office. He has put education back in the centre of national life. He has stressed its importance and brought about radical reforms to enhance education provision.

Mr. Robert Key: Hallelujah.

Mr. Evennett: The national curriculum, local management at schools, opting-out proposals and CTCs are all important in improving the relevance of education, thereby enhancing the status of teachers. Such reforms should be welcomed, but Labour does not do so—it merely condemns and criticises.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disbanded the Burnham system, an outdated and unworkable piece of machinery for determining teachers' salaries. Now he proposes new ideas to deal with the annual salary awards of teachers. A better negotiating machinery will enhance the status of teachers. The innovative proposals to increase the number of teachers by the articled and licensed teacher routes are to be welcomed. They offer opportunities for well-qualified people to go into the profession and ensure that there is more on-the-job training in schools rather than in the ivory towers of the colleges.
Merely increasing salaries will not encourage more people to be teachers. We must ensure that we get the right people for our children, for the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and for the future of the country. Children are our future and teachers have an important and special role to play. Most teachers do a good job in difficult circumstances, and Conservative Members praise them, but the profession and the trade unions must change some of their attitudes. More money is needed—not across the board, but selectively. I should like to highlight the position of the middle-range teachers, who have been in the profession for 10 to 15 years and who are aged between 35 and 45 and underpaid.
We need to consider housing for teachers in Greater London, where house prices are astronomical and a disincentive to teacher mobility. Teachers cannot move into Greater London and the home counties for promotion because they cannot afford to buy a house. When determining teachers' salaries, more emphasis should be placed on market forces with greater regional differences to take account of the different regional costs of living. Only then will there be greater staff mobility and an influx of people into the teaching profession. Local management of schools will be of great value, as will the other Government-sponsored reforms which are designed to increase value for money in education and provide a better quality education service. Better schools with better educational emphasis would generate more and better teachers and a vocation to teach could again be in vogue.
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard little from the Opposition about what they would do if they ever returned to power. They have no idea what to do, other than just throwing money at a particular problem. Putting in money across the board will not solve the problems in the shortage areas. Other measures are needed, and Conservative Members have made constructive suggestions.
There is a problem, and more action is needed—we all accept that. The Government are aware of the problem and are actively working to reduce the shortages. Teaching remains a fine career, which interests many young people, and also many older people. We have a duty to encourage more entrants to go into the profession and to ensure that they are well rewarded and have a good career structure. Much has been done, but there is more to be done, especially in the shortage subjects and in the home counties and Greater London. We look for a partnership of trade


unions, teachers, Government and local education authorities to solve the problem. I believe that we can and will solve it.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have made substantial progress since the last debate on this subject on 2 May. In that debate, almost all the Conservative Members who spoke tried to argue that there was not a problem of teacher supply and teacher shortage. The ground has shifted substantially since then. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made a number of references to the problems of teacher supply and shortage in his constituency. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) made a telling contribution about the problems facing the Kent local education authority. He said that he noticed the differences between the earlier comments by Ministers and their comments now, and that point struck home. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that there was now a problem of teacher supply and shortage.
The consensus is growing, and it is now so strong that we have taken the Secretary of State with us, although not all the way. Perhaps, if I were writing his end-of-term report, I would say that he had made some improvement in terms of understanding the problems of teacher supply and shortage. He admitted that there was a problem. He defined it as a regional problem and limited it to London and the home counties. He was right, but he told only half the tale. There is a more substantial problem, of which the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware and about which his Department provided great detail in its evidence to the Select Committee on teacher supply and teacher shortage.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the likely shortages by the mid-1990s, according to the Government's current projections. They predict shortages of 1,000 teachers out of a total demand for 20,000 in mathematics; 1,500 and 2,000 respectively out of a total demand for 11,000 teachers each in physics and chemistry; 6,000 out of a total demand for 22,000 in technology; 2,500 out of a total demand for 19,000 in modern languages; and 2,000 out of a total demand for 7,000 in music. It is not just a regional problem; it is also very much a subject problem, and the Secretary of State was wrong not to refer to that.
The Secretary of State was wrong also not to draw the attention of the House and the country—although parents already recognise this, as I am sure do teachers—to the substantial hidden shortages in terms of the delivery of the school curriculum. The most recent available figures are for 1984. The Department of Education and Science seems to be reluctant to collect figures on teacher supply and teacher shortage. According to the Department's evidence to the Select Committee, 13 per cent. of timetabled tuition in mathematics and 18 per cent. in physics were provided by teachers with no higher education qualification in those subjects. There is not only a regional shortage but a hidden subject shortage.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State said that east London is a particularly bad area for teacher shortages, and it has been confirmed by parents in my own constituency that there will be a big shortage. Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from one small pilot project in Newham to get ethnic minority teachers, the Secretary of State has outlined no action to tackle that problem in east London?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a telling point from his own experience. Perhaps I can refer back to it later in my speech.
Conservative Members have given a number of explanations of why we have a problem. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made a speech that was unusually disloyal to the Government. Presumably it had not been vetted—for the first time ever—by the Whips. He said that he would like the Treasury to loosen the purse strings on teachers'pay. He is not alone in saying that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman gets most of his political ideas from the Daily Mail—that would come as no great surprise to those of us who have watched his intellectual development over the years.
He will have noticed, no doubt, that there have recently been two articles on the subject in the Daily Mail. Last Tuesday, II July, its education correspondent made the important point that this year's pay rise will be less than the current rate of inflation. He added:
That simply is not good enough.
Today, a Daily Mail editorial says that a recent survey showed that many young graduates are drawn towards teaching as a career and concludes:
it is only the poor pay that puts them off.
The Government say that there have been increases in real pay for teachers since they came to office, and that that makes teaching more attractive as a profession but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it is the comparison with other graduate professions that is crucial. The growth of average earnings in other graduate professions is better than the growth of average earnings in teaching.
I shall illustrate that point with some figures. During the 10 years that the Government have been in office, average real earnings for teachers have increased at an annual rate of 3·9 per cent. We should compare that with the figure for accountancy—which must be dear to many Conservative Members—which is 4·1 per cent. For the financial, insurance and taxation sector, the figure is 6·4 per cent., for computer programmers it is 4 per cent, and for medical practitioners it is 4·8 per cent. Despite all the Government's claims about teachers' pay, it has grown more slowly than the comparable all-graduate professions that I have referred to.

Mr. George Walden: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I will not give way, because of the shortage of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
The Government's argument on teachers' pay does not hold up. As the Daily Mail and many hon. Members have said, there is clearly a need to look again at teachers' pay.
There has been substantial reference to low morale in the teaching profession. The Secretary of State says that the Labour party does not like to make proposals on how to deal with the crisis of teacher shortage and supply. Let me offer him three or four points about morale that would have a very positive impact on teacher supply.
First, it is important for the Government, and any future Government, to restore to teachers the right to bargain over their pay and conditions. The loss of that right was a deep blow to morale in the teaching profession, and the longer the Government go on imposing their own pay increases on teachers, the further morale will collapse.
Secondly, is it not the case that, when the Government introduced the Education Reform Act 1988, and when the


Secretary of State has talked about his reform of education, until recently, he has never thought it necessary to take the teachers, their professionalism and their experience with him in the process of change? Throughout, the Secretary of State has denigrated the teachers' contribution and their professionalism and tried to impose change without taking them with him.
Perhaps I visit more schools than the Secretary of State—that would not be a great achievement—but when I visited a secondary school in north Yorkshire the other day, the head teacher told me that the school's science teachers were training and offering advice, out of school and without pay, to primary teachers in feeder schools so that they had some feel for, knowledge of and involvement in the development of primary science and the national curriculum.

Mr. Key: Well done.

Mr. Fatchett: Yes, it is well done by those teachers, but how often are they criticised by Conservative Members, and how often is their commitment recognised by the Government? If the process of change under the Education Reform Act 1988 had taken teachers with the Government and with the reforms, we would have had a very different situation in relation to morale.
Thirdly, there are roughly 400,000 people in the pool of inactive, qualified teachers, yet we rarely hear any proposal from the Secretary of State or Conservative Members to try to attract them back into teaching. Why does he not find out more about that pool of inactive teachers and their child care needs, so that they can go back into the teaching profession? Why do the Government not provide more refresher courses so that some of those teachers can go back into the classroom, do the job that they trained for and make the contribution that they want to make?
The Government seem to have written off totally those inactive teachers, but they are an important pool of expertise and it is about time that the Government came forward with proposals for them.
One of the most notable elements of the debate was the Secretary of State's refusal to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was a simple, important and potent question for parents throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State give parents a guarantee that no child will be without a teacher, and so be sent home from school, this autumn? Will he give that guarantee? The Secretary of State refused to answer that question. He can fiddle with his papers now in embarrassment, but he knows that the answer is that he does not have the ability or the policies to deliver the duties that are placed upon him in the Education Reform Act 1988. Nor does he have the ability or the policies to deliver the moral responsibility placed upon him to ensure that all our children have equal access to education.
During the debate, every Conservative Member, in lines presumably provided by the Department of Education and Science, said that responsibility lies with the Labour Opposition, as they called the debate. I remind the Government that they have been in office for 10 years, and that they are the cause of the problem. The time will come, very shortly, when the Conservative party is out of office. Meanwhile, the Government have to stand up to their

responsibilities. While they fail to stand up to those responsibilities, the education of thousands of children is being endangered and the standard of their education is being reduced. It is time that the Government stood up to those responsibilities and made sure that there is a real guarantee to parents and children that there will be teachers in our classrooms this September.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I have listened with care to the remarks of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have accepted some of the points made by my hon. Friends and I congratulate them on making some sensible suggestions. I was saddened by the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), whose very tone served only to exacerbate the problem by reinforcing the views repeatedly expressed by the media and by Opposition Members about low teacher morale. One almost has the feeling that Opposition Members want that to continue—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."]—although I know that that cannot be true because many Opposition Members have the interests of children at heart.
Opposition Members should listen more often to speeches such as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Instead of repeatedly endorsing low morale and referring to difficulties in teacher supply and so on, my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which, during his three years in office, he has raised the level of public interest in education to such an extent that teachers now begin to feel that they are appreciated as members of our society because of the job that they are doing in schools and for children.
Teachers also have much to achieve by implementing the national curriculum. In that regard, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Hillsborough attacking the national curriculum, which, after all, was a direct response to the long-standing debate about the standards of education in this country, that had been going on since 1977, when a Prime Minister of the hon. Gentleman's own political persuasion raised the subject.

Mr. Flannery: I did not make any formal attack on the national curriculum—I attacked the Secretary of State, and, indeed, the Minister, because they will not give us enough teachers to deliver the national curriculum.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hillsborough is a late convert to the idea of the national curriculum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made a thoughtful speech. He started by saying that he was disappointed—rightly so, in my view—at the level of this debate. He rightly identified the serious problems which arises from high housing costs in some parts of the country. Ministers are fully aware of that problem. We take the point that it has a bearing not only on teachers but on all those who work in areas which have experienced astronomical increases in house prices over the past few years. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is a good thing that house prices in badly affected areas are now beginning to fall.
My hon. Friend also made the valid point that it is important to be able to attract men as well as women into our primary schools. We need the right balance of good


men and women teachers in our primary and secondary schools and Ministers have some sympathy with the view that we should consider how to tackle the regional differences.
In parenthesis, I want to ask a question, to which I am sure I shall get an answer. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to Labour's policy of a national housing allowance for teachers. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East, I have a little difficulty with, and certainly distaste for, the idea that taxpayers should subsidise such a policy. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn will take this opportunity to tell us what Labour's national housing allowance means, how it will be applied and to whom and how much he would expect it to cost. That information would he most interesting.

Mr. Straw: I am delighted to accept the Minister's invitation. Almost every Conservative Member who spoke in the debate referred to the problems caused by high housing costs in some parts of the country. The answer to that problem is not regional pay—it is to deal with the high cost of housing through a nationally funded allowance which would vary from area to area according to variations in housing costs.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am afraid that the worst fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East have been realised. Not only do we not know how much the allowance would cost—we know that it is to be nationally funded and we must therefore assume that it will be financed from the taxpayer's pocket.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was concerned about the Inner London education authority and the cost of teachers. Similar problems apply in many other high-cost housing areas. The hon. Gentleman welcomed my right hon. Friend's initiative to enable teachers from New Zealand and Australia to gain qualified teacher status after one term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discussed that this morning. It is an unfortunate condemnation of ILEA's policies that the young woman concerned is contemplating leaving its employ because she is not being paid as a qualified teacher although qualified teacher status has been granted to her by the Department of Education and Science. I should like an explanation from ILEA of its policies on employing teachers.
In my view, we need to take a hard look at the way in which some local authorities operate a ring-fence, no-redundancy policy, which means that good, well-qualified new teachers cannot find jobs. In the north, for example, some teachers trained in the secondary shortage subjects about which we have heard so much, and who have already received our £1,300 bursary, cannot find jobs locally. I am told that other authorities will not employ probationary teachers. People are being turned away from teaching because local education authorities are not interested in using their services.
In other parts of the country, early retirement is virtually an open door—

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I have too much to say.
The policy on early retirement is a crazy policy at a time when some schools and authorities cannot recruit teachers to take the place of those whom they are letting go. The

hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will agree with me that it is extremely important that we should address ourselves to that problem.
It has also been suggested that under the present system teachers from overseas have to be paid as instructors, and at a lower rate, pending the successful outcome of their application for qualified teacher status. That is simply not true—under the present regime, and under the new licensed teacher regime starting in September, those people can be paid as qualified teachers. If London authorities have a real problem in that regard, the solution now lies in their hands.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for his thoughtful speech and I was interested to hear of his support for our licensed and articled teachers policy, about which we heard nothing from the Opposition.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made a sad little speech largely based on inaccurate information. He claims, for example, that we have fewer graduates now than in 1979. In fact, we now have 200,000 more students coming into higher education than in 1979. The hon. Gentleman must be amazingly out of step to say such things.
I am delighted to support the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who made the very good point that local education authorities can be active in helping teacher recruitment. My hon. Friend said that the extra money granted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the education support grant should be used to help recruit people back into teaching.

Mr. Straw: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 302.

Division No. 306]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Buckley, George J.


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clay, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blair, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blunkett, David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Darling, Alistair






Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Douglas, Dick
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alexander
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Maria
Nellist, Dave


Galbraith, Sam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pendry, Tom


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Salmond, Alex


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howells, Geraint
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sillars, Jim


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Janner, Greville
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kennedy, Charles
Steinberg, Gerry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Straw, Jack


Lambie, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lamond, James
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Leadbitter, Ted
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Livsey, Richard
Wall, Pat


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wallace, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Walley, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McAllion, John
Wareing, Robert N.


McAvoy, Thomas
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McFall, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McKelvey, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McLeish, Henry
Wilson, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David





Wise, Mrs Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Young, David (Bolton SE)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amess, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gregory, Conal


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howard, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Jessel, Toby


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Emery, Sir Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evennett, David
Key, Robert


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kilfedder, James


Fallon, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Farr, Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Favell, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)






Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knowles, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lilley, Peter
Shelton, Sir William


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stokes, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Summerson, Hugo


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Trippier, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wheeler, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. John D. Taylor.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 215.

Division No. 307]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Aitken, Jonathan
Franks, Cecil


Amess, David
French, Douglas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Gardiner, George


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Eggar, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
Kilfedder, James


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fallon, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Tony
Knox, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Fishburn, John Dudley
Latham, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark






Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


McCrindle, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Sir Charles
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thorne, Neil


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Norris, Steve
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Warren, Kenneth


Portillo, Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rowe, Andrew



Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Sackville, Hon Tom



Sainsbury, Hon Tim





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Blair, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Boyes, Roland





Bradley, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George J.
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kennedy, Charles


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lambie, David


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lewis, Terry


Clay, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Clelland, David
Livsey, Richard


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAllion, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cummings, John
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Galloway, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Grocott, Bruce
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hardy, Peter
Robertson, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rogers, Allan


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, Jeff


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare






Sillars, Jim
Wallace, James


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis



Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Vaz, Keith



Wall, Pat

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government for its coherent and energetic programme to tackle teacher shortages, notably licensed teachers and articled teachers; welcomes the increase in the number of initial teacher training places; notes the substantial improvement in teachers' pay in the lifetime of this Government which contrasts with the modest increase under the last Labour Government; and urges local education authorities to use the flexibility available to them to recruit and retain a sufficient and well-qualified number of teachers.

King's Cross Railways Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Sir George Young: The House will recall that the purpose of the Bill is to give powers to British Rail and London Underground to carry out works at King's Cross. The House debated its provisions for five hours on Second Reading.
The works include the expansion of the stations at King's Cross and St. Pancras to handle more and longer trains, connecting lines to allow spare capacity at St. Pancras to be used, and expansion of the underground station to deal with the increased number of passengers who use that station each day.
Key elements of the proposals are the provision of secondary exits from underground platforms and the relief of congestion in the ticket hall which will improve safety by making emergency evacuation of the station considerably easier.
A major element of the scheme is the new low-level station proposed for international trains via the Channel tunnel and for cross-London Thameslink trains. Increased capacity on the Thameslink route is an important part of the initiatives included in the Central London rail study and are designed to relieve overcrowding on London's underground system and to encourage the use of public transport to relieve road congestion.
The international terminal is designed to allow trains to run beyond London, to the midlands, the north of England and Scotland. It will also provide good


connections between international trains and regular InterCity services to the north and to local British Rail and underground services.
The House gave a substantial endorsement to the principles of the Bill on Second Reading, the majority being 211 to 41. Detailed scrutiny of the Bill is already well under way in Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). The Committee has sat for about 40 hours and today completed its ninth day. Two witnesses today finished giving their evidence, for the British Rail Board and for London Underground, on policy. In addition to the nine sitting days, the Committee spent a full day on a site visit.
It must be right to allow the Bill to proceed, and in particular that the Committee's considerations of the matter should be concluded. Much effort has been put in by petitioners and by the promoters in preparing evidence for the Committee, and with the progress that has been made, it must be right that the matter should proceed.
Any alternative which involved deferring consideration of this important project would be unjust on the petitioners and would cause delay, uncertainty and anxiety for many who live and work in the area. It would also delay a project which, if the House approves, will bring substantial benefits to thousands of daily travellers.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman name one petitioner who wishes the motion to be passed?

Sir George Young: It would be unfair on the petitioners, who have already incurred considerable expense, if the motion were not carried. It would not serve their interests to leave the matter in abeyance, yet that is the case that the hon. Gentleman will make. He must know that every Bill promoted by British Rail since 1979, except one general powers Bill, has had to be carried over at least once. If private Bills are blocked, as the hon. Gentleman has blocked this one, and they have to go into Committee, it is practically impossible to complete all their stages in a single Session. There is nothing unusual about the motion.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Sir George Young: For many Sessions both Houses have accepted that to deny carry-over motions on private Bills causes needless expense to the promoters and the petitioners, and increases uncertainty for those whose land may be subject to compulsory acquisition. Against that background, it is right to allow the Bill to proceed, bearing in mind that the House will have the opportunity to consider it again on Third Reading before it goes to another place.

Mr. Chris Smith: I vigorously opposed the Bill on Second Reading and I oppose it now. It should not be carried over. The sooner it falls, the better for all concerned.
I confess that I am astonished at the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which are usually of better quality. He seemed to imply that it would be unfair to petitioners if the Bill were not carried over. Each and every one of the petitioners

against the Bill would be only too delighted if it were not carried over tonight, but sent into the state of limbo that it richly deserves.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Bill would simply be reintroduced. To reject the motion would not solve the problem.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my arguments. The crux of the debate is precisely the necessity for British Rail to get its proposals right before reintroducing a Bill on a second Channel tunnel terminus in London. I am sure that all petitioners who are my constituents would endorse that sentiment.
I wish to remind the House of what the Bill does to my constituency and to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It involves the destruction of 31,000 sq m of property in two conservation areas, the demolition of four listed buildings, the destruction of a valuable Victorian townscape, the enforced relocation of 88 families living in 88 residential units, the possible closure of 116 businesses involving 1,950 jobs and the destruction of the Camley street natural park, which brings joy and education to thousands of school children in a part of London which has fewer open spaces than anywhere else in the country.
We are talking about the destruction of homes, jobs, livelihoods and an entire neighbourhood. That should be permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances, with the most pressing need and in the absence of a viable alternative. In this instance, that simply is not the case. There are several specific reasons why British Rail should go back to the drawing board and think again about its proposals for a second London terminus. By rejecting the motion, that is what we shall ask British Rail to do. I suspect that no one is against maximising the benefits of the Channel tunnel and the traffic that will flow from it, but the Bill is not the right way to go about doing that. British Rail must go back to the drawing board.
Clause 19 establishes a frightening precedent. The issues that it raises must be resolved before we give the Bill a fair passage. Clause 19 proposes to remove all the usual planning requirements and controls for listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled ancient monuments. There are seven listed buildings in the development area covered by the Bill. Four of them face demolition as a consequence of British Rail's proposals. The grade 1 listed buildings of St. Pancras and King's Cross stations are likely to be substantially affected by the proposals. In addition, there are Saxon and Roman archeological remains to be protected.
The problem with clause 19 is that it establishes an awesome precedent by removing entirely the legal controls which protect listed buildings and valuable archeological sites. A private Bill will override public legislation. English Heritage, in particular, has expressed the gravest anxiety about that precedent and even the Secretary of State for the environment—for once siding with the angels on conservation—has expressed concern about it. It is simply not acceptable to enshrine a proposal to overturn all the present protections for our heritage in a specified area in a private Bill which is being rushed through the House. This issue is too important to remain unresolved if the Bill is to proceed at its present leisurely pace through


Committee. Before we allow it to carry over, we must resolve the issues surrounding the preservation of our heritage thrown up by clause 19.
Clause 28 raises similar issues. I am tempted to observe that clause 28 always seems to end up being controversial. This clause 28 relates specifically to the case being mounted by the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners against British Rail about their rights over some of the land contained within the purview of the Bill. That is the subject of litigation. A revealing exchange took place during the Committee proceedings. The Chairman expressly asked counsel for the promoters of the Bill:
Can you tell us whether it is expected that they will determine the questions"—
that is, the questions relating to clause 28—
before this Committee winds up its own proceedings?
The answer from counsel for the promoters was:
I think that is probably unlikely, sir.
Counsel for the promoters was of the opinion that the legal issues relating to clause 28 and the ancient rights of the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners—not insubstantial bodies—over the land would not, in all probability, be resolved before the Committee concluded its proceedings. It would be much better for those issues to be resolved before we continue with our consideration of any proposals from British Rail relating to the land in question.
Thirdly, there is the issue of the Camley street natural park. As hon. Members will remember from Second Reading, the park was created several years ago, with help from the Greater London Council, to provide an area of natural wilderness with trees, shrubs, water, insects, birds and the fullness of wild natural landscape in the middle of an area of considerable dereliction. The Bill will destroy that park. It is remarkable that British Rail has, in its list of prospective witnesses on its behalf, failed to include any ecological experts. It is even more remarkable that in Committee counsel for British Rail specifically said that the London Wildlife Trust, which is petitioning against the Bill and which is currently charged with the running of the park, was absolutely right in its assessment of the value of the park. British Rail's case was not that nothing of value would be destroyed by the Bill, but that, although something of value would be destroyed, something even better—in BR's view—would be put in its place.
Unless and until there is proper ecological evidence putting British Rail's case and outlining what would be done to reinstate that park, we cannot seriously consider the Bill's proposals. British Rail must have the support of ecologists of note and weight. Whatever British Rail proposes, even if it is the most superb proposal—which I doubt—for the reinstatement of a better and larger version of the park, it is undeniably true that for at least five years there will be no park for the enjoyment of the school children in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Virtually an entire generation of schoolchildren will be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy that park.
Fourthly, there is the absolutely crucial question of the traffic that will be generated above ground by the development in the King's Cross area and beyond. The promoters' environmental statement is a weighty document, but has only a relatively short section—section 12—on the vital question of traffic impact. It reaches the somewhat unbelievable conclusion that traffic flows will

increase in the locality of King's Cross, but only to a very limited extent. The detail about traffic flows provided in that statement is worthy of close examination. Surely there must be better and more credible traffic impact information on the siting of the second station at King's Cross before we can begin properly to assess the effect of British Rail's proposals.
The statement deals with roads in the immediate vicinity of King's Cross. York way runs immediately beside the existing King's Cross station and divides the constituencies of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. It is one of the principal routes from the north to King's Cross area. The environmental statement says that traffic flows on York way
will not be significantly different to forecast flows
for the general proposals for development in the King's Cross area. The statement admits that on Pancras road there will be some increase in traffic flows. It says that between Euston road and the new east-west road forecast flows in the northbound direction will be 80 to 90 vehicles per hour higher than they would otherwise be. On Euston road, in both eastward and westward directions, the statement says that there will be about 40 vehicles per hour more than there would otherwise be.
A picture emerges of York way having no significant increase, an increase of 80 to 90 vehicles per hour on Pancras road and an increase of 40 vehicles per hour in each direction on Euston road—none of which is of enormous significance to the present traffic congestion.
Most unbelievable of all is the statement's forecast for Copenhagen street—and east-west road running directly through much of my constituency which comes to a right-angled junction with York way immediately opposte the site of the proposed major office development just to the north of the new international station. Copenhagen street will undoubtedly carry an enormous amount of extra traffic as a result of the Bill's proposals. Yet the statement said:
In common with the results of the LRC development only, it is predicted that traffic flows on Copenhagen Street with the addition of the International Rail Terminal will be no greater than at present.
I challenge the authors of this environmental statement, especially the authors of the traffic implication assessments in the statement, to come with me to meet the people who live on Copenhagen street and tell them that, because they do not believe it for one moment. So long as we have traffic assessments of such a dubious quality and traffic consultants suggesting that the greatest impact of the construction of a new international terminus at King's Cross, with upwards of 10 million or 15 million extra passengers a year travelling through it, will be an additional 150 cars per hour, those assessments will be entirely unbelievable. Until we see some better traffic assessments and more reliable witnesses, we cannot possibly continue to consider the Bill properly.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) may raise the same question, but my understanding is that, in addition to the international platforms, there will be two carrying Kent commuter trains into the international station. Having looked through the evidence, I am not at all clear whether the traffic assessments allow for the likelihood of 12,000 commuters arriving from Kent at the new King's Cross-St. Pancras Station. According to the authority's figures at least 6,000 of them are expected


to continue by tube, which leaves another 12,000 who will have to get their place of work by some other means. Undoubtedly, some will go by road.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that British Rail's proposals involve the construction of an eight-platform station underground, rather than the original proposal of a six-platform station underground. We also know that British Rail is assuming that the vast majority of travellers on to the international trains—presumably this is the same for the suburban trains—will come to and leave from King's Cross by public transport. I do not believe that British Rail is making anything other than a hopeful guess when it says that. The likely increase in congestion in the King's Cross area should be taken into account if we are to consider the Bill further.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is being wholly fair to British Rail. Its record on forecasting has been impeccable to date. For example, he will remember that it forecast, on the basis of a 13-year decline in traffic, that a high-speed railway link would not be needed at all. Would the hon. Gentleman care to extrapolate from some of British Rail's figures to see what sort of figure he comes up with if its margin of error is as great for road traffic generated by King's Cross as it was for rail traffic?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to be entirely sceptical of British Rail's record as a forecasting agency. It appears to be rivalled only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecasts for the British economy.
Three years ago, British Rail said, in its evidence to the Select Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Bill, that King's Cross would not be needed as a second Channel tunnel terminus and that Waterloo would be sufficient well into the 21st century. It went on to say that King's Cross was not a feasible option precisely because of traffic congestion in the King's Cross area. That position has not changed—the only change has been that the traffic congestion there has become even worse. For British Rail to come to us now with the totally unbelieveable tale that the traffic impact of a new international station at King's Cross will be an extra 150 cars per hour at most is something that we cannot possibly accept. We must demand a better quality assessment before we can proceed properly with the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry to interrupt the free flow of the speech of my hon. Friend and neighbour, but my understanding—I am afraid that I have the information at second hand—is that today, in evidence to the Committee, Mr. Richard Meades of London Underground said that the information about the decision to have two platforms devoted to Kent commuter trains had not been communicated to London Underground in time for it to assess the extra impact of those commuters on the Underground system. It would be unfair to expect my hon. Friend to know the answer to my question, but perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) could intervene on my hon. Friend's speech and give us the facts.
The question is: was the information about the intention to use two platforms for Kent commuters available to those making the traffic assessments or were

those assessments made in total ignorance of British Rail's intention? If, as I suspect, the latter is correct, that is all the more reason why the Bill should be deferred, taken away, re-drafted and returned in the next Session or not at all.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point. I suspect, although I do not know, that the answer is that the assessors did not take account of the added impact of traffic on King's Cross and the surrounding area. It would not surprise me in the least if in this, as in so many other matters, British Rail was moving the goalposts in the middle of the game.
An important issue, on which much of the Second Reading debate focused and which was subsequently highlighted by discussions in Committee, was that of through trains travelling to other parts of the country. Some extremely interesting points arose in Committee. In the second volume of Committee proceedings, on page 23, the issue of through trains from places such as Newcastle was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) in his questions to counsel for British Rail. When he pressed her on this subject, she said:
we would not expect to run a very high frequency service from Newcastle to Paris.
On the same page, British Rail estimates the through services that it expects to provide.
We should bear in mind the fact that British Rail has been selling King's Cross to hon. Members as the ideal location for through traffic from the Channel tunnel to all the northern parts of the country. That is the line that British Rail has been peddling to get support from hon. Members on both sides of the House for its proposals for King's Cross. However, in the report of the Committee proceedings, we see the reality of what British Rail actually proposes, which is as follows:
a number of overnight services from north of London, perhaps something like a train from Edinburgh, a train from Glasgow, and a train from the South-West and South Wales, to go to the Continent, and in the daytime to run something like four trains a day each way, and those four trains a day each way would basically be two from the West Coast Mainline, probably from Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Manchester, joining up at Rugby, and two from the East Coast Mainline, probably from Edinburgh and Newcastle and a portion from Leeds, also joining up probably at Peterborough.
In other words, from the Committee proceedings we know that British Rail's intentions on services through King's Cross running direct from Paris or Brussels to the north of the country are three night trains and four day trains. Seven through trains in 24 hours will be the sum of this marvellous opportunity for people in the north, in Scotland and in the north-west to enjoy the benefits of the location of the international station at King's Cross.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I take it that my hon. Friend is saying that the evidence that we have received is enough to decide us that the Bill should not proceed further. On forecasting, leaving aside the ridiculous idea that one can forecast traffic 20 or 30 years hence, let alone the 50 years that would be the life of the station, will my hon. Friend comment on my surprise at the fact that only four international platforms are designated? Bearing in mind the expansion likely in railways, another eight platforms jointly between King's Cross and St. Pancras, which have not been markedly extended since the turn of the century, would be adequate


for domestic traffic. Does that not predicate that this terminal will be far too small for any through-London or terminal station for the Channel tunnel?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. He should have added that, when one builds a station underground in a box that one has specially created for the purpose of that station and that station alone, one cannot extend it. That ought to be borne in mind by British Rail if it is at all confident of its predictions about future traffic.

Mr. Dobson: Is not the evidence that my hon. Friend has just read out a demonstration of British Rail's chicanery? That was not the explanation that it got the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to proffer against the instruction that I proposed on Second Reading—that the Committee should ensure that this project would permit a frequent, safe and reliable service of fast trains to the midlands, Scotland and the north. We know now that this wondrous service will amount to seven trains, three of which will be "night flights", with all that that implies, and that the connection with the west and the north-west may be by way of travelator between King's Cross and Euston stations. In other words, much of the information that was given both during and before Second Reading, was wholly and falsely misleading, and calculated to mislead the House into approving the Second Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We are not in Committee and interventions should be brief.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is my contention that British Rail peddled this Bill on a fallacy when it came to the House before Second Reading and it is now revealed for what it intends, which is a minimal service of through trains beyond King's Cross from the Channel tunnel.
I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the number of through trains. The direct services that were promised by British Rail to chambers of commerce, trades councils, hon. Members and the country are now revealed for what they are—four trains per day in daylight and three at night. It is no wonder that British Rail wanted to defeat the instruction that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tabled, which asked for fast, frequent and reliable services to the north and to Scotland.
My hon. Friend also raised an issue that has been linked to the western main line route. Again, we had interesting evidence in Committee, which showed that British Rail has in mind the faint possibility that there might at some stage be a link called the West Hampstead link to connect the east coast lines with the west coast lines. It is not definite about that. All its references were along the lines of, "We hope to implement the West Hampstead link," or, "We think it probable that we might." There is no guarantee as yet of a proper link with the west main line services. Yet that link is vital if we are to ensure that the trains can get to Manchester, Liverpool, the north-west and on to Glasgow.
The Committee proceedings tell us that a travelator is being considered to link King's Cross with St. Pancras and Euston. Engineering assessments are being carried out, but British Rail does not know whether it will be done by cut and cover or by tunnel. It talks blithely about how easy it is for people to walk the 800 yards from King's Cross

station to Euston to transfer from the international station to the west coast lines. That is nonsense, and until British Rail makes specific proposals for the lines to be linked by the West Hampstead link, or by a travelator from King's Cross to Euston, inadequate though that would be, until it comes forward with definite information on those points, we cannot ask the Committee to continue to consider the Bill in its present form.
We must also bear in mind the fact that the Committee proceedings reveal that the drive for King's Cross as the choice location for the second international station is clearly coming not from railway considerations but from considerations of railway land development immediately to the north of the proposed site for the new international station. At the first sitting of the Committee, counsel for British Rail revealed this when she said;
What is, however, of crucial importance in terms of timing is that a decision about the extent of railway works at King's Cross, including a second Channel Tunnel terminal, is made before any development takes place on King's Cross railway lands.
We have the Bill before us this Session and it is being rushed through in advance of the consideration of the Channel tunnel link to King's Cross. The British Rail board took only 45 minutes to reject Stratford in favour of King's Cross. All this has been done with unseemly haste because the board wants to get on with the office development to the north of the proposed station, so as to make as substantial a profit as possible from it. That is what drives British Rail—not the strategic planning of railway services for the country as a whole, which should be its motivation.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman has studied these matters much more closely and in far greater detail than I have. Does the forecast of additional traffic generated by the works at King's Cross include the additional traffic generated by property development?

Mr. Smith: That is one item, and one item only, that British Rail appears to have got right. It has looked at the likely traffic impact, as it sees it, of the office development and the international station. It is the paucity of difference between the two which raises major doubts about the accuracy of the traffic forecast in the environmental statement. Surely it is the wrong way to go about taking a large-scale strategic transport decision in Britain—and, indeed, a large-scale planning decision—to be in such a hurry before the full considerations can be put before us.
The intensity of my protest against the Bill and my argument that it should not be carried forward into the next Session is heightened by the treatment that has been meted out to local people and to local petitioners against the Bill. Of some 280 petitions initially submitted against the Bill, only 151 survived the massacre that British Rail perpetrated upon them. Local people and organisations with a perfectly legitimate interest in the Bill, its contents and overall impact, have been debarred from making their voices heard in protest against it and from putting their arguments to the Committee. Among those excluded have been English Heritage—with a direct interest in clause 19—the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham, residents who live immediately to the south of the proposed development, and even the Islington, South Conservative Association.
Many of my constituents feel disfranchised by the procedure that the Bill is going through. The process will


end in the destruction of a neighbourhood and untold disruption to thousands of people, and it represents a denial of democracy for many thousands of my constituents. More than 200 years ago, Tom Paine sat down in a room above the Old Red Lion public house at the Angel, not half a mile from where British Rail is proposing to put the station, to begin writing the first part of "The Rights of Man". The rights of men and women are being trampled on by British Rail and by the Bill. I urge the House to seize this opportunity to throw it out.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The local horror of this major development is a matter for colleagues from London constituencies and my brief contribution to the debate this evening will be on the credibility of the promoter and whether the House should allow a promoter, whom I hope to show to be barely credible, the right to carry through a Bill into another Session.
The trouble with British Rail is that it thinks on its feet. Cogito ergo sum, said the philosopher. Today, when to all intents and purposes British Rail is not at all, is a good day to examine that ancient philosophical saw.
I used to be innocent enough to believe the theory of the private Bill which I absorbed when I first arrived here and before I arrived here at all. It was that a private Bill was introduced after the project to which it referred had been thought through and designed. All my experience of recent months has revealed to me that private Bills are introduced and then some hurried thinking is done on what is really meant.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will find confirmation of what he is saying on page 46 of the sixth day of the Committee's proceedings, when a Mr. Edgley, representing British Rail, was asked whether British Rail intended to produce a master plan for everything to do with the consequences of the Channel tunnel development. He replied:
No, we do not intend to produce a master plan. We do intend to produce plans for single issues.
British Rail's whole approach is one of temporary spatchcock plans for different issues in the hope that it will be able to con the House into passing a long succession of allegedly unrelated Bills.

Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It was Mr. Edgley who told the all-party Transport Committee of the House that on the high-speed rail link, which immediately affects my constituency, British Rail had intended to conduct consultations with the local public on the basis of the plans that it had put forward on 6 March. But the people of Kent had been so swift in producing alternative plans that it had to carry them out in a piecemeal fashion. In fact, the consultation in Kent has been a complete farce because people have had to debate propositions which they already knew had been overtaken by events.
British Rail is full of nice, polite people who mean well. The trouble is that we all know the terminus to which roads paved with good intentions lead. Let me exemplify why I believe that British Rail is not to be trusted as the promoter of this massive enterprise.
As we know, British Rail told the Select Committee that there would not need to be a high-speed line at all. Now it

cannot cope without one. It told—this is an extraordinary story—Swale borough council this month that that assertion to the Select Committee was based on traffic figures relating to 1966—not 1986.
British Rail told the Select Committee that it would be bad for the travelling public to have two termini for the Channel tunnel trains. Now it not only insists on having two, but is full of all sorts of powerful arguments why two termini are so much better than one. They were not better than one a year ago, but they are much better than one now.
British Rail published its original plans last year showing Stratford as one of the options. Let it be known that it was a front runner. Now it says that Stratford will not do at all.

Mr. Tony Banks: Unlike British Rail, the London borough of Newham has had a proper study made of the merits of Stratford as the site of the terminal vis-a-vis King's Cross. The hon. Gentleman probably already knows, but the study shows that Stratford would be £1 billion cheaper. Travel to central London is only a matter of a few minutes slower and connections with the rest of the United Kingdom are similar to those provided by King's Cross. In addition, there is ample car parking space which there is not at King's Cross, and there are direct connections to the M11 and the M25. Any reasonable person would conclude that Stratford was the obvious choice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman forgets that it would be impossible to choose Stratford because whereas the people there want Stratford to be chosen, the people of King's Cross passionately do not.
It is impossible to believe that British Rail reached the view that it did after taking into account the studies into the east-west and north-south London lines. After all, a promoter who admits using figures that are 20 years out of date may not be scrupulous about the date on which he closes his consideration of the available evidence. Those studies show, as does the Buchanan report commissioned by Newham, that Newham's accessibility is superior to that of central London.
It is essential to remember the point made so well by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that it will not be possible to undertake any expansion at King's Cross. Throughout the whole saga, British Rail consistently under-estimated demand. It originally said that the line was not needed at all. We were led to believe that British Rail was very reluctant to embark on great works, because it did not see either a need for, or a profit from, them. British Rail is now saying that, because everything is getting so busy, it cannot wait even a few months.
British Rail came late to the understanding that there is a future in railways after all. Had I been British Rail, I might have been doubtful about the future for railways. Nevertheless, in Europe at this very moment, 12,000 miles of railway are being planned, whereas British Rail is thinking very small and very incrementally. My belief is that no sooner would the new King's Cross be completed than British Rail would return to the House with a plan to expand another location, because its choice of a central London site left no scope.
Another example of the same kind of thinking is British Rail's assertion that it must have a commuter station in Kent—and one where there can be massive car parks. Everyone knows that commuters need to get to and from their station in their cars, yet British Rail turns that argument on its head in respect of King's Cross. As more and more offices and centres of work are moved from their formerly convenient positions in central London, commuters want to drive their cars to the station. The prospect of thousands of commuters driving their cars to King's Cross, and then finding that there is no car park for them there, is bizarre. [Interruption.] The sponsor of the Bill is making noises, and I think is agreeing with me that it would be absurd to have no car parking space at King's Cross.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps the sponsor is saying that there will be 100 parking spaces at King's Cross, and that the 3,000 places at Stratford would not be good enough.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) may be saying that. He may be saying that the commuters who use King's Cross are different in kind, or are a different species, from the commuters in Kent.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend draws an absurd parallel between a railway station in Kent and King's Cross, which is served by five Underground lines. The parking requirements of commuters using a station in Kent are totally different.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend makes an interesting argument. One might argue just as well that there need be no parking facilities at a railway station because it is served by a railway line. One might equally argue that a railway station in Kent should be served by a bus service. No, in reality commuters must be able to use and to park their cars.
I wonder whether we should buy a Bill from a punch-drunk promoter who changes his forecasts and plans, and even his rolling stock. When one asks British Rail what rolling stock it will use, it says that it is still negotiating with the French, to establish whether Mickey Mouse-sized wheels can be used, so that rolling stock can be used on track on both sides of the Channel.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 44.

Division No. 308]
[8.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Beith, A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Curry, David


Bottomley, Peter
Dixon, Don


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyes, Roland
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Durant, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buckley, George J.
Fallon, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Cash, William
Forman, Nigel


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Freeman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, George





Glyn, Dr Alan
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael


Green way, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
O'Brien, William


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patchett, Terry


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howells, Geraint
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Shephard, Mrs G (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shersby, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Illsley, Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Irvine, Michael
Speed, Keith


Jack, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Squire, Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Steen, Anthony


Kennedy, Charles
Stern, Michael


Key, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Kilfedder, James
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, D (Calder Valley)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thurnham, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Ivan
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lightbown, David
Warren, Kenneth


Lilley, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Widdecombe, Ann


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wilshire, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wood, Timothy


Maclean, David



McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sir George Young and Mr Anthony Nelson 


Mans, Keith





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Beckett, Margaret
Lewis, Terry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Litherland, Robert


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McFall, John


Caborn, Richard
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Dunn, Bob
Rowe, Andrew


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Short, Clare


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fyfe, Maria
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Golding, Mrs Llin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Graham, Thomas
Wray, Jimmy


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Tony Banks.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed


with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Animal Health

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4183/89, 4839/89 and 5057/89 relating to the animal health aspects of trade in certain animals and animal products; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.
I welcome this early opportunity to outline the Government's position on three very important proposals. They are the first of 20 or more measures that the Commission intends to publish this year on animal-health aspects of trade in animals and animal products.
Let me say at the outset that the Government have no intention of jeopardising our current high health status. Let me also thank the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who sought me out yesterday and today to ask me about this important measure.
The three proposals should be seen as part of a wider process of rationalisation leading to the eventual completion of the Common Market. The Government's general position on animal health matters in the context of the single market is clear: we fully support the overall objective of harmonisation of Community health requirements and are committed to the eventual removal of trade barriers, but—as I have said—we have no intention of jeopardising our current status. We therefore welcome the Commission's frequently declared intention of ensuring that the completion of the single market is achieved without giving cause for animal disease to spread into areas where it is not currently prevalent.
To the extent that the Community achieves uniformly high health standards, the need for controls over the movement of animals and animal products between member states will, of course, eventually diminish. In the meantime, the progress towards achievement of such standards must not be put at risk by a premature relaxation of existing safeguards. For geographical and historical reasons, the position of different member states on animal disease varies considerably. Safeguards are needed to protect the health status of the regions that are relatively free from disease—including, of course, the United Kingdom.
I know that those general principles are widely shared by many interested organisations that we have consulted. With them in mind, let me now deal with the three specific proposals that are the subject of the motion.
The proposal concerning intra-Community trade in, and imports from, third countries of bovine embryos has been discussed in detail at official level. It is likely to be presented to the Council of Ministers in the week beginning 24 July, which is why we are having this debate this evening. As matters stand, after the Council working-group discussions, intra-Community trade in bovine embryos will be subject to a common set of rules covering the animal-health status of donor animals and the conditions under which embryos are collected, processed, stored and transported.
Embryos will be permitted to be moved from one member state to another only if they are accompanied by an official health certificate confirming that they comply


with the prescribed health requirements. Designated embryo collection teams will, under veterinary supervision, be responsible for carrying out collection, processing and storage of embryos.
Imports of bovine embryos from third countries will be permitted only from countries, or parts of countries, approved by the Community. Approval will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will depend on animal health in the country concerned, the structure of its veterinary service and its ability to respond to and control outbreaks of disease. Where approval is granted, all consignments will need to be accompanied by an official health certificate, under conditions that are specific to the country or areas concerned. In line with intra-Community trade requirements, the collection, processing and storage of embryos will have to be carried out by officially approved collection teams under veterinary supervision.
As explained in the explanatory memorandum, submitted on 22 March 1989, the proposal, if adopted as it stands, will provide protection against foot and mouth disease for the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland which do not vaccinate against the disease and therefore have fully susceptible livestock populations. Article 4 allows imports of fresh embryos to be prohibited from member states where vaccination against foot and mouth disease is practised and, in the case of frozen embryos, for pre-export virus isolation tests of flushing fluids for the foot and mouth disease virus. There has been some pressure from other member states at working group level for a less stringent provision, but we shall continue to resist any measure that does not provide adequate guarantees against the introduction, even remotely, of foot and mouth disease.
We are satisfied that bovine embryos, imported under the conditions that I have briefly described, would provide the same high level of protection against the introduction of animal disease as is currently the case under our national import rules.
The sheep and goats proposal, No. 4612/89, also covers trade between member states and imports from third countries. Sheep and goats would have to be accompanied by official health certificates confirming compliance with prescribed health requirements. Member states could seek approval to demand guarantees over and above the minimum laid down if they have, or propose to have, national disease control programmes which require the same guarantees for movements within their territory. Therefore we could lay down stricter conditions, provided that we were willing to impose the stricter conditions in our own country. We already do so and we shall continue to do so. As with cattle and pigs, we should be able to require post-import quarantine against foot and mouth disease.
Imports of sheep and goats from third countries would be subject to the same set of rules as already apply to the import of cattle and pigs from third countries under directive 72/462. Imports of sheep and goats would only be permitted from those countries, or parts thereof, that had been approved by the Community. All animals would have to be accompanied by an official health certificate and would be subject to an official animal health inspection immediately upon arriving within the Community. The list of diseases in directive 72/462 would be enlarged to include those significant epizootic diseases of sheep and goats.
Unlike the bovine embryos proposal, the sheep and goats proposal would not provide the same degree of

protection against the introduction of diseases as the current national rules. For example, in the case of contagious agalactia, which is prevalent in many South American countries but absent from the United Kingdom, the proposal requires animals to be six months clinically free in the herd of origin, but we require three years of freedom and pre-export testing. Because of the chronic nature of the disease, we believe that the proposal as it stands could significantly increase the chances of it being imported. If that happened, affected animals would have to be destroyed, which would be extremely costly. We understand that it costs Spain about £26 million a year.
The sheep and goats proposal has been discussed by national experts in a Council working group. My officials expressed our concerns. It became clear that other member states are also concerned that the proposal is deficient in several respects. There is a lot of work to be done. We shall continue to press for the necessary level of protection.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not think that the Minister referred to the extent to which the eventual legislation will be decided by majority or unanimity voting. The motion refers to the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements. The Minister has referred to the fact that other member states are unhappy. Complete satisfaction can be assured only if there is unanimity. If there is less than unanimity, satisfaction cannot be guaranteed.

Mr. Thompson: If the majority is against it, we shall be satisfied. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these measures will be decided on a qualified or a proper majority. He knows that not every country has the same number of votes. We have 10, Ireland has three and Luxembourg has two. The hon. Gentleman was instrumental in urging us to hold the debate so that the concerns of hon. Members could be put before Ministers and their officials. He has just put one of those great concerns before us. We fully understand that we shall have to work very hard to ensure that health status is preserved.
Directive 5057/89 relates to the poultry and hatching eggs proposal. Its main provisions for intra-Community trade require that all export consignments must originate from premises approved by the member state and in accordance with plans approved by the Commission, that special provisions be made for exports from member states that vaccinate against Newcastle disease to those that do not, that any voluntary or compulsory disease control programme in force, or introduced by member states, must be approved by the Commission and that each member state must designate a national laboratory responsible for co-ordinating disease diagnostic methods.
As for third country trade, imports would be permitted only from countries approved on the basis of, first, their animal health status, secondly, their freedom from classified diseases and, thirdly, their veterinary service structure and ability to guarantee compliance with the prescribed import conditions. In addition, as with the other two proposals, consignments would be subject to a check at the first point of entry into the Community.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister will recollect that he gave me a most courteous and constructive hearing when I went to see him in his office on 18 May regarding the importation of poultry, but particularly parrots, and especially Amazonian parrots. Can the Minister report any developments that have


occurred in the past two months? He was full of good will at the time and I have no doubt that he is doing his absolute best on this difficult subject.

Mr. Thompson: Knowing that the hon. Gentleman would be in his place tonight, yesterday my officials sent me a letter on the four points that he raised. I was not entirely satisfied with the thoroughness of that letter so I sent it back as I felt that we could get closer to what the hon. Gentleman and I seek regarding the importation of exotic birds into this country, their despatch from their country of origin and the way in which they are looked after here before they go into the retail trade. I knew that the hon. Gentleman would be here, but I was not prepared not to go as far as I could.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Is that category of poultry within the framework of document No. 5057/89?

Mr. Thompson: I would not wish to suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had not read the document. It mentions single birds and perhaps the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was worried about single birds.

Mr. Dalyell: The family of psittacus is classified as a game bird and the document includes game birds.

Mr. Thompson: We had better not argue with Mr. Deputy Speaker any longer as we have a long time to go and we shall need him later.
Quarantine would be permitted for imports from third countries only if disease were suspected. The proposal is scheduled for a first reading by a Council working group later this week. With the support of the House, my officials will press for our genuine concerns about the implications for the health of our national flock to be taken fully into account.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The memorandum provided by the Select Committee on European Legislation states on page 9:
The trade criteria which third countries would have to meet in order to export to the Community have yet to be defined, but Member States would have the general power to impose post-import isolation on third country birds or hatching eggs suspected of being diseased.
It continues:
This could … be too late to prevent the spread of Newcastle disease".
Is the Minister satisfied that the trade criteria which third countries would have to meet would be of a sufficiently high standard to prevent the onset of such diseases?

Mr. Thompson: I am not entirely satisfied with that at present, and I shall deal with the matter in a moment.
I shall move on to a subject that worries many people—rabies. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have written to me on this matter.
The Government naturally support action at a Community level for the eradication of rabies but we would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can be considered only when quarantine is no longer necessary to exclude the disease. Although the Government support the Commission's revised proposal that member states should implement

eradication programmes before the end of 1989, we believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than the three years originally provided for. It is therefore likely that quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992.
The United Kingdom, in common with a majority of member states, believes that we must retain the right to take urgent safeguard action against imports from other member states when a serious disease threat arises from that quarter. At present there can be no reason for confidence that the Commission would be capable of taking rapid and effective action in such circumstances. Speed of response can be crucial if the spread of a serious disease is to be prevented.
That is one reason why the Government attach considerable importance to quarantine, which is a necessary measure in relation to particular diseases while zones of different health status remain. In some cases, such as Newcastle disease, quarantine at the point of destination has proved to be effective, but in the case of foot and mouth disease, for example, quarantine needs to be applied at the point of entry, and isolated from native animals, to avoid the spread of disease. In the United Kingdom, quarantine facilities are largely provided by the private sector. We must make sure that the private sector is willing to pay for adequate safeguards to maintain the standards necessary for our successful import and export of animals.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I hope that the House will be completely united in demanding the development and the maintenance of the most effective measures possible to prevent the spread of animal diseases. Rather earlier than he expected, the Minister has moved his take note motion which
supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.
Just this once, we shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, but we shall demand a full debate on the final proposals when the negotiations in the European Community have been completed. It would be interesting if the Minister were to give us some idea of the timetable which the Government and the European Commission have in mind.
The House must reserve its right to vote on a matter of vital national importance. For once we can use the word "vital" literally, as it is a matter of life and death.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is proper for us to debate the substantive legislation when it appears, but I hope that he is under no illusion that the resolution of 30 October 1980, under which the debate is being held on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation, gives no guarantee that such a debate can take place. Such a debate would occur only through the willingness of the Leader of the House or the use of a precious Supply day. I hope that my hon. Friend is under no illusion that a debate on this important and vital matter is assured or automatic.

Mr. Home Robertson: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for his work in these matters. Technically he is quite right, but I was trying to obtain from the Minister an undertaking that in due course the House will have an opportunity to debate and vote on this vital matter of life and death. The House must retain and establish its rights


and I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will provide time for such a debate in due course. I am more than willing to give way if he wishes to deal with that point now.

Mr. David Maclean (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Usual terms.

Mr. Home Robertson: That was a helpful intervention by the Government Whip from a sedentary position, but we hope to hear from the Minister in due course.
We have at present—

Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: No, because I want to make progress.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman not give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: All right.

Mr. Cash: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that we were in such a tearing hurry. Perhaps he has something more important to do later.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting that we shall be able to amend any future Westminster legislation if it is derived from the directive? Surely he understands enough about the European Community to know that that will not be possible.

Mr. Home Robertson: I understand that clearly, and the hon. Gentleman is right. We have plenty of time for this debate; I understand that we can continue until 11.30 pm. However, I do not want to take too many interventions, because Front Bench speeches can go on interminably in that case. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be a debate and a vote on the subject in due course.
We have admirably effective safeguards for animal health at present in the form of the North sea, the Irish sea, the English channel and the Atlantic ocean, combined with rigorous controls at ports and airports, and effective quarantine regulations. However, sadly, the Commission regards any frontier controls as anachronistic obstructions to the internal market, which must be swept away in 1992.
I am a long-standing supporter of the principle of European unity, so I hope that I shall be allowed to say, in the best communautaire spirit, that this proposed extension of the European principle may turn out to be fraught with unjustifiable dangers which should and must be avoided. No political or economic ideal can justify measures that would lead to the avoidable spread of disease, and surely frontier health controls are one manifestation of national sovereignty which is wholly justifiable in international terms. We urge the Government to forget about Britain's sovereign rights to opt out of the social charter or to pollute the sea and instead to concentrate on protecting our livestock and people against imported diseases.
The House is indebted to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities for its report entitled "1992: Health Controls and the Internal Market", which sets out the background to the proposals with admirable clarity. We must recognise that there is a wide variation in the pattern of animal health in different parts of the European Community and I will give three examples.
Foot and mouth disease, to which the Minister referred, is common in Italy, sporadic in Germany and non-existent in the United Kingdom, among other countries, largely thanks to the combined effects of quarantine controls and the policy of the slaughter of affected herds whenever outbreaks have occurred in the past. That policy has been supported by the farming industry and Governments of all parties. However, that policy could be at risk under these proposals.
My second example is Aujeszky's disease in pigs. It is endemic in most other European Community countries, but it has been virtually eradicated in Britain, largely thanks to concerted action by the British pig industry. That achievement is protected at present by the application of health standards on imports. What guarantee can there be that such protection will remain in place if the proposals go through as they stand?
My third example is rabies, to which the Minister referred. He knows that hon. Members of all parties and the British public are alarmed by the possibility that rabies could be reintroduced into the United Kingdom in future. Rabies is endemic in wild animals in most of the European mainland. It is an ever-present, potentially fatal risk to farm animals and humans. Britain has been kept free of rabies because of our natural advantage as an island, combined with quarantine regulations and great vigilance at our ports.
I could cite many more examples of different diseases, but the fundamental point is that it would be a costly and tragic disaster if diseases such as foot and mouth, Aujeszky's disease or rabies were to return to Britain because of the ill-considered relaxation of frontier controls to meet political deadlines in 1992–93. Let us not overlook the rights of other countries to protect themselves against the problems that may arise in Britain, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a disease which is new to the world as far as I know, and new to Europe, and which crops up in many parts of the United Kingdom. We must recognise the right of our European Community partners to take steps to prevent the spread of that disease on to their territories.
The framework of national controls to isolate diseases wherever possible has worked well, especially in the islands or peninsular states of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark. It would be downright reckless to relax those controls unless they were to be replaced by measures that were at least as effective—or, wherever possible, better.
We can sum up the Commission's present proposals as follows. It proposes first to raise animal health standards throughout the European Community. It then wants to go on to rely on the authorities in the regions from which animals are being moved to certify that their health is up to the standard of the region to which they are being consigned. I am sure that we all support the objective of raising health standards and we are genuinely impressed by the efforts being taken to eradicate rabies, for example, on the European mainland.
I am sure that the House would want to support the efforts of our European partners in that campaign, which will be costly and difficult and take a long time. There should be no question of dropping our guard until it is certain that the risk has gone. Neither rabies, foot and mouth disease, Aujeszky's disease, BSE nor any of a long list of animal diseases will be eradicated from the territory of the European Community by the end of this millennium, let alone by 1993. That cannot be done.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and giving a competent exposition of the dangers. Ray MacSharry, the Agriculture Commissioner who has signed one of the European Community documents, said in May in the Assembly in Strasbourg that there would be complete freedom of movement of animals by 1992. He is determined to press ahead with these proposals, in spite of the dangers that my hon. Friend is setting out so well.

Mr. Home Robertson: My background on the general debate about European issues is rather different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I have consistently supported the principle of European unity. It is, however, daft to concede some points in these circumstances. The House should be united. I am astonished that responsible people such as Mr. MacSharry propose doing away with safeguards that could put an important industry in his country, the Republic of Ireland, at risk.
We may be able to legislate to abolish frontier controls, but surely the House understands that, powerful as we may be in this great Parliament of ours, viruses and bacteria are not susceptible to legislation. We have controls that can prevent the spread of these diseases and keep them in place. Meanwhile, there can be no substitution for the protection of our veterinary surgeons and environmental health officers monitoring and controlling imports. In an ideal world, officials at a point of departure could be relied upon to act in the best interests of the point of destination, but strange things can happen in transit. Many of us remember that someone must have authorised the dispatch of at least 20 consignments of nasty meat from Ireland last year into the United Kingdom, which were detected only by a vigilant environmental health officer in Cornwall.
Let us keep our environmental health officers and our vets in position, with the powers that they need to protect the health of our animals and our people. The House should heed what they say about these proposals. The Institution of Environmental Health Officers has said:
We believe that the Commission's desire to remove barriers to trade prior to 1992 is taking precedence to public health and that the Regulations are designed to protect producers and encourage trade rather than to protect the consumer.
Surely, if the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have learnt nothing else during the past 12 months, they have learnt that it is time that the Government and the European Community understood the need to protect the interests of the consumer. The consumer is not prepared to put up with lax standards from the Government or anyone else.
The British Veterinary Association has said:
Given the differing health status of the member states … the time is not ripe to dispense with existing frontier controls.
The BVA went on to question the Community's ability to achieve uniform high standards of veterinary controls in the short term. It pointed to the fact that the proposed new system
will require considerably increased resources in money and veterinary manpower at the Commission and in … the UK.
Government agencies have been threatening to cut veterinary education at Cambridge and Glasgow and the Government have been cutting expenditure on the state veterinary service, yet we are debating a new system of controls that will require the services of many more vets.

What do the Government say about that? Will they make provision for more vets to make the new system work when and if it comes into effect?
The British Veterinary Association also referred to the animal welfare aspects of the proposal to expand trade in live animals. Occasionally we see alarming reports of sheep or calves being transported across several countries in conditions even worse than those at Heathrow or Gatwick in July. It is not a laughing matter. Many of our constituents are deeply concerned when they see television film of sheep that have been kept tightly crammed into cattle lorries with little access to food or water for long periods while they are in transit across mainland Europe. Do we really want to encourage the transport of live animals and poultry to and from every point between Crete and Donegal? I suggest that, with the exception of the specialist trade in quality breeding stock, we should concentrate our efforts on reducing the avoidable stress on live animals in transit by encouraging the alternative trade in meat on the hook.
The documents refer to poultry and eggs. I remind the Minister that some months ago his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to respond in rather difficult circumstances to respond to the emergence of evidence of the risk of salmonella in eggs. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not exactly cover itself in glory but, after much clucking and scratching around, the Ministry is now applying better controls to guard against salmonella in the British poultry industry. Grave shortcomings remain, however, in our ability to enforce similar standards in respect of imported eggs.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for letting me see a copy of the letter dated 10 July from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, referring to the importation of eggs and the difficulty of enforcing the new high standards of salmonella protection that we have in this country in respect of eggs imported from the European mainland:
Port Health Authorities are undertaking systematic sampling of imported eggs for the presence of invasive salmonella. It is not practicable to hold up importation while the tests are carried out but any positive finding is referred to the European Commission and to the country of origin so that action can be taken to deal with the problem at source.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: tests are carried out on eggs, but if the authorities discover something wrong with those eggs, the rest of the consignment is put on the market in the United Kingdom nevertheless, and a written report sent to the European Commission and to the authorities in the country of origin. That means that our farmers, who are being asked to apply stringent and costly controls and to maintain higher standards on their poultry and egg farms, are having their position undermined by unfair competition from across the water. That is not a reassuring background against which to debate the documents.
Finally, let me register our alarm at the categories of animal diseases outlined in the Commission's initial proposal. Three separate groups were listed—three separate categories of diseases and the different ways in which they were to be dealt with. Group I was the group of diseases that were to be subject to compulsory notification and were recognised as a serious threat to the Community economy. Group I included foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever, swine vesicular disease and Newcastle disease; so far, so good.
Group II covered contagious diseases to be notifiable on a herd basis. That group included tuberculosis and


brucellosis, which ought surely to be subject to the tightest possible controls in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the Community.
Then we come to Group III, which included diseases that were to be subject to discretionary notification and voluntary eradication in individual herds. It was to include, amazingly, not only serious animal diseases such as Aujeszky's disease, but rabies. Are we really to believe that, not long ago, the Commission was proposing that rabies should be a category III disease subject to voluntary eradication? It is against the background of that lackadaisical approach that we are being asked to sanction the relaxation of frontier controls.
Of course, as the Minister acknowledged, other important diseases, such as sheep scab, were not mentioned in those initial lists. In a written answer on 17 February, the Minister told me that those lists were to be reviewed and that rabies, in particular, would go on the agenda. We are thankful for small mercies. However, with an agenda whose background owes more to politics than to any scientific consideration of animal health—followed by those absurd initial proposals in the list—we now find ourselves moving towards negotiations that could threaten a century of achievements in animal health.
Mr. K. W. Wilkes, a former head of the animal medicines division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and now a consultant to the British Veterinary Association, reported on a recent session in Brussels in the 15 July edition of the Veterinary Journal. He said:
the determination to remove frontier controls was considerably greater than the likelihood of securing the necessarily uniformly high health standards by the end of 1992.
That is an alarming prospect. This is a serious debate, and I hope that the entire House will be united. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will go to Brussels and negotiate in the certain knowledge that people in Britain and the British Parliament are not prepared to tolerate the watering down of such essential and literally vital standards. The House will expect the Government to introduce a far more responsible approach to these affairs in those coming negotiations.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have no desire to detain the House but, as the representative not only of my constituents but of the all-party group for animal welfare, I must say how we appreciate the robust line that is being taken by my hon. Friend and the Ministry within the Council of Ministers on this vital issue, and the Government's determination to ensure that our high standards are maintained.
Having said that, on both sides of the House there is grave concern that our advantages as an island may be dissipated and that the considerable standards of animal welfare, health and care that have been established over the centuries, and especially in recent years—not only through good husbandry, but through high standards of veterinary care—may be swallowed up in a rush towards a unified European market, when others are prepared to settle for far lower standards.
The documents before us show that the measures are but the first of some more than 20 animal health measures—whether they are animal welfare measures is a moot point—to which we are likely to be subject. I hope that my

hon. Friend will not take it amiss when I say that, as one who is considerably concerned with animal welfare generally, I see this as the potential thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
On occasions, this Parliament and this country have been accused of being little Englanders. However, one of our certain advantages as an island is that not only do we have legislative measures—which, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, are of small value—designed to promote animal health and to protect the environment of the United Kingdom, but we have a natural boundary of which we have been able to take advantage.
The word "rabies", which is highly emotive in the House and throughout the country, has been mentioned several times. I feel that it is incumbent on me, if no one else, to say that the measures before us, which deal mostly in the rabies context with sheep and goats, are riot likely—even were they implemented in the Commissioner's wildest dreams—greatly to increase the risk of rabies throughout the United Kingdom, because sheep and goats are regarded as end-of-the-infection-line animals. They do not infect other animals, but they could, under certain circumstances, infect humans with rabies. Nevertheless, it is potentially the thin edge of a wedge.
If we rush towards the single market without due care for animal health and animal welfare, the advantages that we have accrued in this country and the protections that our vets and farmers have built up over the years will undoubtedly be threatened.
Therefore, I must advise my hon. Friend the Minister that I agree entirely with the hon. Member for East Lothian and share his hope that, if the unelected Commission sees fit to pursue these matters without due regard to the high standards in this country in its move towards the single market, and if it adopts the lowest rather than the highest common denominator, we in this House will have the opportunity fully to debate these matters. I hope and believe that this is an all-party issue and one that we all take seriously. Hon. Members of all parties will, I am sure, reject any measures suggested by Europe that do not seek to promote, maintain and even improve upon the high standards that we have come to expect and enjoy in this country.
I should like my hon. Friend and his colleagues to rake a clear message to Europe: we in the United Kingdom are not prepared to settle for second best. At the moment, we enjoy high standards and should like to achieve even higher standards, and in this context we expect the rest of Europe to follow us.

Mr. Geraint Howells: We are united in our deliberations tonight on safeguarding the interests of the public and looking after the interests of our animals.
I congratulate the Minister on being frank with us on his stand in Brussels on this important issue. Hon. Members may not know this, but I am aware that the Minister is well used to animals and knows about their best interests and the health risks facing them. Therefore, he is in the right position to discuss the problems of animal health tonight. I wish him well in his further negotiations on behalf of industry and the public in Brussels when the opportune time arrives.
The documents that we are debating relate to trade in bovine embryos; in eggs—poultry and otherwise—and in sheep and goats. With respect, I believe that the reason for all these moves is simply to standardise rules and procedures across the EC. However, in its determination to bring every member state into line, the Community is in danger of reducing public health standards and increasing the risk of disease. Indeed, these are not animal health regulations; they are animal ill-health regulations, unless we can improve them.
The EC is attempting to round down to the lowest common denominator. It is refusing to recognise the traditions of individual countries and Britain's special nature as an island. I know that the Minister and everyone else involved in animal health is proud of this country's record. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade others to change their minds and to improve the standards of animal health in the Community.
My specific complaint is that the rules relating to certain diseases would be relaxed. Contagious agalactia—an udder infection—is currently subject to an official certification of three years' freedom from the disease, plus pre-export testing. This would now be limited to six months. It would thus require the United Kingdom to seek derogation to retain its higher standards. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his counterparts in Europe to accept again the certification of three years' freedom from the disease.
Other diseases are rare in Britain but are more common on mainland Europe. I am thinking of caprine viral arthritis-cae and maedi visna. The relaxation of existing rules could prove a threat to unaffected livestock in this country.
The sheep and goats proposals would reduce to 30 days the present six months period during which animals must be free from rabies before being allowed in. That period of 30 days would be less than the incubation time. I was surprised to read that rabies in sheep and goats represents 14 per cent. of all cases in the Community. The Minister will have to press that point forcibly at the opportune time. Other wind-borne diseases would be less well controlled. There is, therefore, the risk of a significant reduction in the United Kingdom's "animal status," as the Select Committee put it.
Checks would be made mainly at points of origin and destination. That would be madness for an island such as Britain, for our spot checks and quarantine arrangements would be seriously undermined. Post-import quarantine would not be permitted for imports from third countries unless disease was specifically suspected. Animal health criteria would have to be certified by the exporting country.
The EC wants an expansion of intra-Community trade in poultry and in hatching eggs. Only recently there arose the problem of cracked and dirty eggs originating in Europe. What steps do the British Government and the EC propose to take to prevent a recurrence of that state of affairs?
In relation to the important issue of foot and mouth disease, will the Minister give an assurance that we in Britain will retain our present slaughtering policy? It would be a retrograde step if that policy were discarded.
If matters concerning animal health went wrong, it would be a sad day for our sheep industry if that meant that we could not export live lambs and carcases to Community countries. Our sheep farmers would never forgive the Government if they did not ensure that our policy of exporting was able to continue for many years to come.
On behalf of all concerned, I wish the Minister well in his discussions. Producers and those who look after and breed animals look to him to ensure that, for many years to come, the interests of all concerned are safeguarded and that the economy of sheep farmers, dairy farmers and all producers in Britain—not forgetting the public—are safeguarded.

Mr. William Cash: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have canvassed most of the issues with which we are concerned today. There are serious dangers in the proposals before us. The Minister has conducted the negotiations so far with the determination and skill that we expect of him. There is all-party, cross-party, parliamentary determination not to allow Britain to be taken down a route which would not serve the nation's requirements. I do not know how Ireland is facing up to these issues—it, too, is an island—but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.
In view of the strong agreement in all parts of the House and the views that have been expressed about the dangers which lie ahead, I suggest, in view of the record that we have established, that it boils down to one main point. If we are satisfied that it is not simply a matter of trying to negotiate away something that cannot be negotiated away because we have reached rock bottom, only one course remains. If there is a persistent determination to continue down a route that we find unacceptable, we must say clearly, "We cannot accept it."
The time is coming when we must face up to the fact that we cannot negotiate about the face of the Cheshire cat. If there is nothing there, there is no point in trying to negotiate about it. We must simply veto it. Exactly how we do that raises important matters of Government policy. I shall not elaborate on that now, but I make the general proposition that we should say that enough is enough. The arcane argument that somehow the Luxembourg accord has been dispensed with is not true. Those who are familiar with the nuts and bolts of the Single European Act know that when our vital interests are affected we can exercise the veto. I hope that it will not come to that, but if it does, I hope that we shall do just that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 18 May the Minister gave me a most courteous and helpful hearing at the MAFF about imports of tropical birds from rain forests. He said tonight that he was not in a position to reply to the points that I put to him and I await his letter with considerable interest. I am heartened that a Minister should request further action on a letter from an Opposition Member. That is the sign of a good Minister. When I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Dick Crossman, he did that on several occasions so that even an Opposition Member could get a better answer. This is a difficult subject and certainly not one of party conflict.
I raise under the third measure the importation of parrots. It would be unfair to go over my interview with the Minister. Since then, the matter has been raised twice in the media. On Sunday evening, 16 July, there was a radio 4 programme by Jessica Holm in the "Nature" series specifically on that subject. Arising out of that programme, there are three important points among many for the Ministry to consider. First, the statistic was quoted on the programme that for every parrot bought at a pet shop in the United Kingdom. perhaps four die on their way here, either in dreadful truckloads travelling to market across countries such as Senegal or, from my personal observation, on rough journeys in the eastern Amazon.
In our interview I explained to the Minister that I had been to the Altamira conference with the Amerindians of the Xingu river and seen at first hand the destruction of mile after mile of rain forest. We must acknowledge the major problem of the destruction of habitats, followed by importation.
Can the Minister tell us, without being out of order, about the number and proportion of parrots the Government estimate die in transit, compared with the number that arrive? In the programme the trade representative disputed the figure and said that 25 per cent. was a more realistic figure than 80 per cent. Whatever it is, we are talking about some increasingly rare birds. In fact, many species are in peril. I hope that the Minister will tell the House of any thoughts that he may have on this matter.
Secondly, the programme emphasised that anyone who thought that we could justify the taking of parrots to breed them so that they could return to the wild was stretching an ecological point a little far. Sometimes it might be a success, but breeding in captivity by no means ensures that stock can be returned to the wild.
Thirdly, the programme demonstrated that the trade in parrots is quite unlike the ivory trade. Those who sell the parrots to the traders get only the proverbial peanuts for them. It is pathetic that they get so little for the capture of those birds. The species are endangered, and for what? It is for pence rather than for pounds. That is the great sadness. I shall not go into detail about the ivory trade, but ivory is at least valuable whereas the trade in parrots is not to needy people who catch the birds. That is an important point.
Four days after my interview with the Minister, on 22 May, there was a striking programme in the "Wildlife on One" series, which featured the capture of parrots in Senegal. One live bird was used as a lure to entrap others. It was suggested that up to 20,000 parrots were legally imported to the United Kingdom from Senegal every year and that they were subjected to cruel treatment in captivity and during transportation to this country.
International trade in endangered species is subject to the provisions of the convention on international trade in endangered species, which is implemented in the United Kingdom and other EC countries by EC regulation 3626/82, as amended. The convention regulates the import and export of threatened species. Those listed in appendix 1 to the convention are considered to be under immediate threat of extinction and, for the most part, are subject to a complete trade ban. Is that complete trade ban actually effective, first, in the United Kingdom and, as far as the Government can estimate, in other European Community countries?
Those species included in appendix 2, of which the African grey parrot was featured in "Wildlife on One", are not considered to be under immediate threat, but trade is limited to a level that is not detrimental to their survival. The difficulty is that, because of the destruction of habitat, which can happen very quickly, parrots that we thought safe five years ago are now, in some cases, teetering on the borders of extinction. Very close monitoring is necessary if we are serious about dealing with that problem.
The convention requires only that traders in the country of origin should have an export licence—Senegal is a party to the convention—but the United Kingdom also insists that an import licence is issued for trade in appendix 2 species. Licences are issued by the endangered species branch of the Department of the Environment, the management authority of the convention, and our main concern is for the conservation of the threatened species. I would in no way want to embarrass this Minister, who has been so kind and helpful. If he does not have all the information available tonight, he can send it to me in writing. It is important that Parliament has the necessary information on the record so that hon. Members can refer to it. He might put his letter in the Library, whose staff have been so helpful to me.
We Members of Parliament receive an increasing number of letters, particularly from young people asking what we are doing about this. CITES is advised by one or two scientific authorities—the Nature Conservancy Council in the case of animals and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in the case of plant species. The other day, I was Ghillean Prance's guest at Kew when we discussed this, and there is a problem. He is a distinguished menage botanist and knows better than most the problems of rare species of birds. I hope that the Department will contact Kew and that its officials will play a video of the "Wildlife on One" programme of May 22 and of Jessica Holm's programme last Sunday.
The Department of the Environment review of the EC CITES regulations of 1986 observed that there was a presumption to recommend approval for species in appendix 2, provided that the trade is monitored under licence and that the Nature Conservancy Council recommends refusal only where there is evidence that
there are likely to be negative conservation implications
That is probably the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, although I saw a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I realise that there is an interface between the two. I do not complain about that, and I do not think that there should be a different civil service departmental allocation. Where there's a will, there's a way and the system seems to work perfectly well. However, I recognise that another Department is involved.
The African grey parrot is considered to exist in sufficient numbers in the wild not to be under immediate threat. Well, it may not yet be under threat. Powers to regulate the conditions in which birds and animals are transported are vested in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, which places a duty of care on the carriers of livestock. The order provides for the carriage of all animals in suitable containers of adequate dimensions, which are properly labelled and stowed to ensure no risk of injury or unnecessary suffering. Other provisions deal with the feeding and watering of animals in transit.
Jessica Holm's nature programme emphasised that sometimes aircraft passengers could be unaware that animals were dying all around and that there were few survivors among a number of dead bodies. What kind of checks are carried out at Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick or the other airports at which these planes arrive to ensure that this does not happen?
The assertion in the BBC programme was that massive abuse took place. I hope that a recording of the programme giving exactly what was said will be made and be taken into account. I have to confess that on Sunday I was picking blackcurrants and listening to the programme at the same time and did not take notes. I am not sure exactly what was said, but I hope that the Department will check it out.
Carriers, including foreign carriers arriving in British jurisdiction, can be prosecuted for failing to comply with any of these provisions. However, the Ministry has no powers to deal with the means of capture or keeping of the creatures in the country of origin before their dispatch. That must be a matter of international arrangement and possibly, either in writing or in person tonight, the Minister will say what is being done, particularly with the Senegal, but also with the Brazilian and other authorities, to try to obtain a better understanding of dispatch, if we must have importation.
The Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979 contains provisions relating to the hygiene and quarantine of imported birds, and a veterinary inspector may require the slaughter of any that are found to be diseased. Over 500 species of birds from 30 countries were brought into the United Kingdom during 1988 and many birds died during quarantine. I understand that quite often birds are in quarantine and the people looking after them may have total goodwill, but not the expertise.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that if we are to have proper regulations, we need more vets with expertise in this matter. That means paying vets. Will the Minister say something about the provision of vets and whether he is satisfied that there is proper scrutiny of the quarantine facilities?
As I understand it, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is conducting a survey into the mortality rate of these birds, which it hopes to publish in about three or four weeks. Is that true? The Minister probably knows about this, and if not, his officials, who have struggled through the traffic to be here today—good on them for doing so—will know about it. Such a survey would be of wide interest.
The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 contains further powers whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment may extend the list of species protected under the CITES regulations and restrict the sale of exotic species. Several species of parrot are scheduled by the 1976 Act, but I understand that it does not cover many more birds. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) who is a Whip, has a good record on wildlife and countryside matters. We both served on the long Committee considering the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, when he was a Back Bencher. I hope that he will use his influence

on the Government if need be to ensure that these matters are taken seriously, and to back up the Minister in his best endeavours.
You have been patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that these points are in order. I ask for nothing tonight other than what is convenient for the Minister, but I look forward first to a reply to the letter following my interview of 18 May and secondly to a reply to the rather detailed points that I have raised tonight.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is an important debate, but its importance is not reflected in the level of attendance in the Chamber. The order represents a potential shift away from maintaining a long-standing policy of scrutiny of, and protection from, animal diseases. I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and spoke about Mr. Ray MacSharry. While the debate has been going on, I have confirmed my memory from The Rainbow of the Common Market Assembly, which meets in Strasbourg. I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend, although he supports the Common Market and I do not. I think that it has been a burden on this country, and I continue to be a critic of it. Nothing that has happened recently has removed the point of any of my criticisms. It is interesting to see that people from both points of view are expressing concern that the Common Market seems intent on pursuing a policy that is daft to the point of lunacy, and which might conceivably allow the spread of diseases such as rabies.
The solution often put forward by the Common Market Commission is that of a certificate of origin, which would certify that animals were free from rabies or other diseases. That would not be acceptable because we would have no guarantee about the quality of the inspection, the qualifications of the inspectors, or the diligence with which the inspections were carried out, which is vital. If the inspections are done in a slap-happy way, and the inspectors are not adequately qualified, the result will be rabies entering a hitherto rabies-free zone. It is important that that should not happen, so the Common Market solution is not a solution.
Numerous people in the Common Market Assembly, the Commission and the Council of Ministers are obsessed with a concept of federalism which overrides the sense and sensibility of allowing member states an element of individual scrutiny at borders to ensure standards of animal hygiene. That is of major concern.
Members of this Parliament simply do not understand the strength and ferocity of the federalist movement within the institutions of the Common Market. Those people intend to override our objections. I press the Minister to make it clear in his reply whether we shall use our veto by declaring this to be a matter of vital national interest or whether we shall simply be outvoted on a majority vote and find ourselves unwillingly acquiescing in rules imposed by the Common Market with which we go along because the Cabinet feel that it must make some sort of gesture of solidarity in the light of 1992.
That would be a grave mistake. I am sure that many people who support the Common Market would have strong reservations about such a solution, saying that we can work within the Common Market but we do not have to accept the abolition of our right of scrutiny of animals


and birds coming into Britain. I press the Minister to tell the House that, if necessary, the Government will use their veto by declaring the matter to be one of vital national interest.
We are debating a motion to take note of the EC documents and supporting
the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.
I am happy to support that motion, provided that the Minister can assure us that it will be carried out with a degree of dedication that will involve using every right that this nation state has within the Common Market to prevent the institution of rules which would be inimical to the maintenance and development of good agricultural animal hygiene and consumer standards in Britain.
During the week beginning 22 May this year, I attended my last Strasbourg Assembly. Curiously enough, the last word that I uttered as a member of that Assembly was on this very issue. I am delighted to think that many members of that Assembly were pleased to see the back of me. I was an unremitting critic and they do not like critics in their gathering.
One question for the Commission was entitled "Control de la rage." The French language shows the power of rabies. I cannot translate the original question, which was in French, because it is too long. People often do not realise that the English version of the record of the Strasbourg Assembly takes about three or four months to produce. A verbatim report called The Rainbow is produced the following day which is not terribly helpful if one cannot read Greek, Danish, French, German or whatever language happens to have been used. However, the essence of the question in French was, "How will rabies be controlled by the Commission?"
Mr. MacSharry, who signed one of the documents that we are considering today, said:
As the hon. Member is aware, rabies is the subject of a special Commission report which is accompanied by proposals to eradicate this disease. The report and proposals demonstrate that rabies has been treated as a special case and that the Commission's policy is to eradicate rabies from the Community thus obviating the necessity for quarantine.
The questioner, Dr. Caroline Jackson of the European Democratic Group, asked:
I appreciate that the Commission has a programme to eradicate rabies but until rabies has in fact been 100 per cent. eradicated will the Commissioner not agree that the British Government is within its rights under Community law to apply the quarantine period?
Ray MacSharry answered:
All I would like to say is that the provisions that will operate after 1992 will totally depend on the eradication proposals that are now in place and these, hopefully, will be successful and thus obviate after 1992 the necessity for quarantine.
The matter was pursued by Mr. Provan of the European Democrats, who asked the Commissioner:
Is he satisfied himself that the Commission's programme is well enough funded to actually eradicate rabies within the foreseeable future or does he feel that we must enhance that programme to make progress a little more rapidly so that we can achieve the abolition of rabies in the Community as quickly as possible?
Commissioner MacSharry replied:
I am satisfied and hopeful that the proposals that are in place and the resources that are available will lead to that situation.
I then asked the Commissioner the following question:
Does that not mean, in effect, that since rabies is advancing in Europe at the rate of about 25 miles a year, as

stated in a report submitted to this Assembly, that by 1992 it will be impossible for the United Kingdom to have completely open borders if they are going to maintain their existing strict quarantine scrutiny of animals coming into the United Kingdom? Is that not an important reservation for the United Kingdom, in order to stop the spread of rabies into the United Kingdom which is rabies-free at the moment?
Commissioner MacSharry replied:
Yes, I know the situation that has been raised by the hon. Member and by Mr. Provan and Mrs. Jackson. It is, of course, a concern of both the UK and the Irish authorities. Our effort on a Community-wide basis is to eradicate this disease and, therefore, obviate the necessity for any quarantine. I have to say that it is hypothetical at the moment what situation might exist after 1992, but if there is to be any consideration for quarantine subsequent to 1992, then it can, or could be, become considered at the point of origin and not at the point of destination and thereby overcome any difficulties that may arise.
Commissioner MacSharry clearly stated that after 1992 checks for rabies should be at the point of origin and not at the point of destination.

Mr. Cash: As Commissioner MacSharry is an Irish Commissioner, has the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in all his research into the situation in Ireland, established the extent to which the Irish Government are enthusiastic about importing various diseases into that country?

Mr. Cryer: Of course the Irish Government are not enthusiastic about that prospect. The truth is that Commissioners are, by and large, politicians who have been put out to grass. They are not experts who have been appointed because of their commitment to sense and sensibility or to the development of good rules. They are the political friends of their sponsors. In Commissioner MacSharry's case, the Taoiseach wanted to find a safe place for a Finance Minister who had imposed a number of harsh economic policies in Ireland. Once appointed, a Commissioner is secure and has no accountability for the policies that he advocates, other than to the College of Commissioners.
It is worth remembering, in respect of imports of live animals into the United Kingdom, that the only loyalty that a Commissioner owes is to the College of Commissioners. When Sir Leon Brittan left this House to become a Commissioner, he said that he would look after British interests, but the truth is that he was obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to the College of Commissioners.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has said a little about rabies, presumably referring to the farm animal categories mentioned in the documents. He has echoed points raised by other hon. Members, including myself. Clearly, however, a far greater risk of rabies being introduced into this country would be posed by any relaxation of the quarantine regulations affecting cats and dogs. A separate document, not included in the group with which we are dealing, specifically recognises the right of the British authorities to maintain quarantine regulations affecting cats and dogs because we are uniquely free of the disease. My hon. Friend should be thankful for small mercies. He is, however, right to put his finger on the fact that there is still the rather remote risk of rabies being introduced by goats or sheep.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Some people in Common Market institutions, however, want to remove those restrictions. They want certificates of


origin to be provided for cats and dogs, and any other domestic animals which may be affected. That has been the subject of press releases from members of the Assembly.
Another person who intervened in the discussion to which I have referred was a man called Dieter Rogalla, a member of the Socialist group and—if I may use such an enticing expression—a rabid pro-marketeer. On his desk is a Customs barrier which is permanently lifted, as a symbol of his devotion to the removal of all barriers. He seeks every opportunity to argue that barriers of every kind must be removed. In the report, he asked the Commissioner, in effect, to counter my comments by asking when quarantine would be abandoned by Great Britain. Mr. Rogalla, by the way, is also a member of the "kangaroo group", a powerful and influential group in the Assembly, the kangaroo symbol representing the ability to jump over barriers at each country border. I mention that merely to demonstrate that there is strong pressure to remove the barriers that we are discussing.
In reply to Mr. Rogalla's question, Ray MacSharry replied, in effect, that he hoped that quarantine would be ended:
I hope in the not too distant future and definitely after 1992.
I have the document here, and it will be quoted in Hansard tomorrow. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that today's motion means something, and that the Government will negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure
effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.
I hope that we shall not be fobbed off and find in six or 12 months' time that a document has been produced saying, "We have discovered that quarantine is not all that valuable—inoculations have been used on a widespread basis in the Common Market and rabies is no longer important as a disease transmittable to humans and animals." I hope that the reference to effective safeguards means that the Government will ensure that we do not depend on certificates of origin from other Common Market countries or from third countries importing into the Common Market, and that we shall use our right of national interest to veto any such proposals. It is vital that the Government should take a firm stand and not capitulate as they have done on so many other Common Market issues.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I shall answer the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) immediately by reading out again what I said earlier:
The Government naturally support action at a Community level for the eradication of rabies. But we would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can be considered only when quarantine is no longer necessary to exclude the disease. Whilst the Government support the Commisson's revised proposal that member states should implement the eradication programmes before the end of 1989, we believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than the three years originally provided for. It is therefore likely that quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992.
Before I came to the debate I read with interest the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.

That exchange of views was vital. I place as serious an interpretation upon it as does the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Government's position about the maintenance of provisions to protect the United Kingdom against the importation of rabies. However, there were one or two weasel words in the statement that he has just read out again. He said that the Government would resist the lifting of quarantine under the circumstances that he described and that he thought it unlikely that those circumstances would arise. What does the word "resist" mean in that context? Do the Government acknowledge that this is a matter of vital national interest, which ought to warrant the use of the veto?

Mr. Thompson: I do not intend to turn this into a drafting session on a paragraph that is perfectly plain and that can be understood by the whole House. "Resist" means resist, oppose and all the rest. The hon. Gentleman went to nearly as good a school as I did, so he can put his own interpretation on it.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put his argument at a most opportune time. On 27 July, there is to be a meeting of the international committee on these matters. I shall ensure that my officials read his words as they compose the Government's answer to him and that they bear them in mind when they attend the meeting on 27 July. It is a pity that the wife of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is to reply to the Adjournment debate, is not sitting next to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has a great deal to do with these matters in the Department of the Environment. I assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow that both the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West and I are very concerned about the importation of parrots and other animals that have to rely upon our support and protection. As he kindly suggested I do, I shall write to him further about the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that officials will listen to the programme on Sunday by Jessica Holm and that they watched the "Wildlife on One" programme that was broadcast on 22 May.

Mr. Thompson: I shall do that, and I shall ensure that my officials do so, too.
It is clear from the debate that the whole House agrees that we should work as hard as possible to ensure that the United Kingdom's animal status is well protected. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made that point very well. He also made the point that BSE is now unfortunately endemic in this country. Continental countries must now realise that, for the first time in many ways, there is a two-way argument.
I do not intend to be drawn into the debate on eggs. We are talking not about eggs for breakfast but about eggs for hatching.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was right to emphasise the fact that animal welfare goes hand in hand with animal health. He drew to our attention the serious matter of rabies. He can be assured that I and the Farm Animal Welfare Council will ensure that the twin protections of welfare and proper standards for animals are maintained and kept in mind.
I have answered most of what the hon. Member for Bradford, South said. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) stressed that we should use every method and every device possible in Europe. Both hon. Gentlemen should remember that I voted against the last beef premium, and that it is unusual to vote against anything in the Council of Ministers. We shall keep that resolution in this most important matter of animal health. The hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Bench, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells)—

Mr. Home Robertson: Before the Minister moves on to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), may I bring him back to the important issue that he has just covered? He has just admitted that the best he can do in the Council of Ministers is to vote against something. That may be unusual, but he voted against the new beef premium. However, we have the new beef premium, regardless of that vote. We are discussing something of more fundamental importance than the beef premium—the possible introduction of deadly diseases into Britain—so may I press the Minister further for an undertaking that it is the Government's intention that the House should have the opportunity to debate the issue further when negotiations in Europe have been concluded?

Mr. Thompson: The usual channels sit on each side of me. It may be that by the time that happens I shall be Leader of the House and will be able to decide that myself. However, that is unlikely and I can go no further.
The hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Bench was kind enough to call me a round peg in a round hole. I have spent all my life with animals and I can assure the Opposition and my right hon. and hon. Friends that we take the matter extremely seriously. I am sure it is not the last we have heard on it.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Minister is not giving way; he has finished his speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4183/89, 4839/89 and 5057/89 relating to the animal health aspects of trade in certain animals and animal products; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.

Airport Congestion

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Harry Greenway: For the past few months, just about everyone in the air travel industry has been warning that 1989 will see more congestion in the skies than ever before. Already the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers believes that it will be a disastrous summer. The majority of the delays will almost certainly be at Gatwick airport, the most popular starting point for charter flights to the Mediterranean, which are most vulnerable to delays than other flights. Many of those flights will be bound for Greece and Spain, where the air traffic control systems are even more overstretched than ours. With the French air traffic controllers permitting six rather than 54 flights per hour through their air space, as they did last Saturday, an outrageous, unacceptable and miserable situation for holidaymakers and travellers is certain. Something will have to be done about it.
Last summer and the summer before, the chaos at Gatwick made headlines for weeks on end. In 1987 the cause of the chaos was industrial action by the French, the Spanish, and at one point the British air traffic controllers. In 1988 the Spanish air traffic controllers' strike caused the initial backlog. After their weekend action, the Greeks then went on strike, the result being delays of up to five hours. The problems were worsened at Gatwick by the breakdown of the main air traffic control computer at West Drayton, repairs to the Gatwick runway, the combined police-military operation to test airport security, and fog.
As the issue of delays comes increasingly into focus, there is a need for a major new initiative to provoke greater Government and aviation industry action to solve the growing crisis affecting airports in the south-east. In considering airport congestion, it is important to distinguish between the delays caused by air traffic controllers through industrial disputes, when they deliberately perform below their best, and those due to traffic volumes being in excess of system capacity. In the United Kingdom, delays for any reason can concertina flights into later periods when congested runways and airspace are already fully committed. That causes knock-on delays, increasing inconvenience and hardship to users and additional costs to airlines and airports.
One solution which is often suggested for easing the problems of delays is night flights. The relaxing of restrictions is still seen by some as a viable method of overcoming delays. It has been anticipated that over the next five years there will be a 20 per cent. increase in the night flight quota at Gatwick. It has been argued that the increase will be brought about by the use of new super-quiet aircraft of the NNA category, which will be phased in at the expense of noisier aircraft.
The use of night flights however, is an intolerable, unacceptable and unnecessary method of relieving congestion at airports. The bottom line of the argument is that any aircraft is noisy and will seriously affect the quality of life of residents in the location of airports. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in his place agreeing with me. Night flights are a significant part of the environmental


distress that will be suffered by residents. Once night flights are established, the authorities may be reluctant to withdraw them, especially at times when delays are excessive. That point is highlighted when we consider that passenger demand is estimated to rise by up to 10 per cent. per annum.
Many of the problems can be anticipated and therefore overcome when we consider that for any increase in charter flights in the summer the traffic schedules are drawn up about nine months in advance. The ensuing chaos could thus have been foreseen. Furthermore, any increase in activity will add to the problem of air safety, especially near-misses. Yet decisions are frequently made without consultation with interested bodies and without safeguards.
Heathrow is unique in that it is located in the suburbs of a capital city, near my constituency, with its runways pointed towards the heart of the city. As a result, Heathrow has the world's worst airport environmental problems.
The issue of congestion in controlled airspace above London and in other parts of Europe comes sharply into view during the summer months. In 1983, the Civil Aviation Authority pointed out that while the then current capacity of the London terminal manoeuvring area had about 130 air movements per hour, the potential traffic-generating capacity at Heathrow was 71, Gatwick 40 and Luton 16, which was 127 aircraft movements per hour. Moreover, other movements, essentially from other airfields, amounted to seven movements per hour, giving a peak demand of 134 movements per hour even before Stansted was taken into account. My source for that is CAA paper 84006. That problem has worsened significantly over the intervening years since those figures were originally published.
The National Air Traffic Service is gradually introducing new equipment with major radar replacements and electronic data displays, for example, and wholly reorganising the use of controlled airspace within the London terminal manoeuvring area. A new system of air traffic control for the south-east, known as the central control function, will enable the NATS to handle at least 30 per cent. more traffic by the mid-1990s. In the short term, by specifying the number of aircraft that can be received, the NATS is imposing limits on airport capacity during peak periods. That not only delays visitors to the United Kingdom—it delays British holidaymakers at airports in this country when it is employed by other European air traffic control centres.
The total reorganisation of the LTMA is programmed to take place in seven stages until 1995. The basis upon which the NATS is undertaking this exercise is unclear, but if it is assumed that Stansted should be developed to the maximum potential of a single runway, it would be necessary to plan for a peak demand of 185 to 200 aircraft movements per hour in the LTMA. Those figures are based upon the following hourly aircraft movements: Heathrow, 72; Stansted, 40; Luton, 20; and minor airfields and overflyers, 13 to 28. There is some uncertainty about the point at which the growth of aircraft movements at Stansted will adversely affect such movements at Luton. If,

however, that assumption is invalid, there would be a need to extend the capacity of controlled airspace in the LTMA by between 42 and 54 per cent.
There could also be an impact in the long term at the world's major airports, as congestion would limit the number of aircraft handled by the end of the century, constraining the development of air transport. For example, in 1987 in the United States delays caused airlines to lose the equivalent of almost 100 days in aircraft operating time every day. That figure was based on a typical 10 hours per day use of each aircraft in their fleets to compensate for delays. Those difficulties at airports cost United States airlines some $2 billion in 1987, or 4 per cent. of revenue last year. That exceeded total airline profits in any single year. It is worth noting that United States flights suffer an average delay of 15 minutes.
Problems for airline manufacturers would include cash flow considerations and low profit margins, which would limit new civil aircraft programmes on both sides of the Atlantic to about one new project every seven to 10 years. Europe launched new principal aircraft types over the past 20 years as European manufacturers caught up the ground lost to United States airline manufacturers. Boeing launched three new programmes in the past 20 years. Consequently, the development in the design of new airliners will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
A review of the past 15 years shows that to solve the problem British aviation interests must take a major part of the blame for the chaos in the air over Europe and the consequent congestion on the ground in the United Kingdom. All the aviation experts have consistently claimed that aircraft would get larger so that fewer, quicker aircraft would be required. At the last major aircraft industry inquiry, the British Airports Authority stated that Heathrow would handle 53 million passengers per annum, with 300,000 aircraft movements—about 177 passengers per plane. Currently, Heathrow is managing about 38·2 MPPA, with 332,000 aircraft movements—about 115 passengers per plane.
The result of this inaccurate forecasting is that 50 per cent. more aircraft than expected are needed to handle passenger demand. Heathrow and Gatwick are running out of aircraft capacity during the day and the air traffic control system must cope with 50 per cent. more flights than expected. As Heathrow and Gatwick are the two biggest international airports in the world, they dominate the European system, so if Britain gets it wrong the whole of Europe suffers. European air traffic controllers therefore cannot plan efficiently if the United Kingdom's forecasting is inaccurate.
It is true also that, if the Government relax the restrictions on night flights, the rest of Europe will be under pressure, so this must not happen. It has been argued that larger aircraft will solve the problem, but few airlines are planning to fly any because passengers see greater choice in frequency and destination rather than in simply consolidating existing services. Continental airports close at night, and so should ours.
Europe's aviation authorities have been urged to co-operate in urgent and efficient plans to ease airspace congestion and provide capacity to meet demand through the 1990s. Last November, Lord Brabazon, president of Eurocontrol, requested an investigation into the short-term ways in which congestion could be relieved. He called for a greater pooling of information on national plans for handling air traffic, for the removal of incompatibilities in


national air traffic control systems in Europe and for the immediate identification of remedial measures for implementation. The Minister called for a new common strategy for improving the efficiency of the air traffic control system throughout Eurocontrol's member states. Lord Brabazon also called for controls in the financing of Eurocontrol and urged member states to make readily available the resources needed to undertake the necessary work, fully recovering the costs from air transport users.
There is also a need to upgrade Eurocontrol's central data bank to improve the future operation of flow control in Europe. Only time will tell whether the changes will result in any movement in the existing system. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and my hon Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who is also in his place.
A more far-sighted approach to the problem of congestion would be to switch traffic from the south-east airports—[Interruption] I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is the Whip, to listen—and actively to encourage increased activity in the regional airports. That would benefit operators and users alike, while spreading the effects of aircraft activity.
For instance, Gatwick at present handles some 21 million passengers per year and is designed to take 25 million. Rather than planning for increased capacity at Gatwick better solution would be to direct growth to the regions and to Stansted. The first stage of Stansted's development will be ready by 1991, when it will be able to handle about 8 million passengers per year and when there will be a fast rail link to Liverpool street station.
Already about 50 per cent. of Gatwick's passengers come from north of the Thames. If more services were available nearer to passengers' homes, it would reduce the need to travel through London and thus reduce travelling time and costs to the consumer. It would also have the beneficial effect of alleviating road congestion in my constituency and those of other hon. Members in west London.
One measure that could be employed in promoting regional development would be to provide incentives to airline operators to use regional airports. The British Airports Authority is in a strong market position, given that it has monopoly control of London's airports, and can offer attractive landing charges to operators to encourage the use of Heathrow and Gatwick. An unlikely solution would be to ask the BAA to increase its landing charges to allow regional airports to compete more readily. A more likely solution may be provided by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The BAA price control formula is reviewed every five years by the commission and the first review is due to be carried out in 1991. That may provide an initial foothold for changing the pricing structure for aircraft use and could be employed in providing the incentive for operations to shift from the south-east to the regions.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his erudite speech. He seems to have answered some of the questions implicit in his remarks. It would be proper for me to acknowledge the interest shown in the matter by the hon. Member for

Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who shows care and concern for those of us who are worried about airport noise, as well as the need for mobility and for transport issues generally. He also shows kindness in helping us with our own transport arrangements. He is one of the silent servants of the House and the Government.
The reason for air traffic control is air safety, as all those who have served in military or civil aviation will know. The first consideration in the handling of air traffic is safety.
United Kingdom civil aviation is, happily, among the safest in the world. That has not come about by chance, but because of work, consultation, debate—sometimes robust debate—attention to detail, and because, as Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales said when she visited the Civil Aviation Authority,
It takes a special kind of person to work in air traffic control.
In the Civil Aviation Authority report which came out today, Mr. Tugendhat, the chairman, said:
This has been another exceptionally busy year for the Authority in all its main areas of activity. The National Air Traffic Services, both at airports and centres, again dealt with more record-breaking traffic levels. There was an overall 11 per cent. increase in air traffic handled by civil controllers in the year up to the end of March, on top of the 9 per cent. growth experienced in the previous year. In addition, several milestones were passed in connection with the Authority's ambitious £600 million investment programme in new air traffic control equipment and facilities.
I leave the rest of the report to be read by those who want to pursue an interest in it. I believe that it shows that many good things are being achieved.
There is no reason and no need for complacency. On a slightly lighter note, to acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I must recall the Flanders and Swann song about how much safer air travel was than going on the roads—and their claim that perhaps the airline coaches had instructions to ensure that the statistics were kept favourable.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bottomley: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, can I just acknowledge that I followed him all the way to his constituency last week, and he drove impeccably? That is probably one reason why the road statistics are improving in the same way as the aviation statistics. I give way to my hon. Friend, who is acknowledged to be the policeman's friend.

Mr. Shersby: After that wonderful tribute, I am loth to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech. He may, however, have heard Mr. Tugendhat on the radio this morning say that it was the CAA's intention to step up recruitment of air traffic controllers very considerably and to recruit at the rate, I believe, of more than 160 a year for the next few years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that will make a great contribution towards improving air traffic control.

Mr. Bottomley: That is right. As hon. Members say, if it is needed, it is right.
It is appropriate to acknowledge that the Civil Aviation Authority has responsibility in these matters. It is one area in which we do not have split responsibility. The CAA has the responsibility, and it is important that Ministers do not


interfere when matters of safety are involved. In the same way as I assume responsibility for road safety and help to organise the alliance that drives casualty rates down, the CAA has that responsibility for air safety, which it should be allowed to carry out without the Minister going in for the cheap political gesture. I pay tribute to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Brabazon, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned.
I have talked about air safety, but I also want to talk about the need to remove any unnecessary obstacles to increased traffic at regional airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was right—I think that he had the whole-hearted support of my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle)—in trying to ensure that people can fly from the areas that are most convenient to them. That would mean that fewer people would drive through the areas that are less convenient to those of us who represent London constituencies. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes in keeping unnecessary traffic out of London. I only wish that more London papers could recognise that that is my policy as well, rather than continually repeating the misguided—sometimes the deliberately misguided—reports from others.
The Government believe in the importance of the role of regional airports in meeting demand. Consistent policy has been to encourage the use and development of the regional airports to meet as much as they can of the demand that arises locally. That encouragement has tangible form. Since 1981–82, the Government have approved capital allocations totalling more than £240 million towards the development and expansion of local authority airports. I am delighted to report that traffic at many regional airports is growing healthily. For example, Manchester airport handled 9·5 million passengers in 1988, which is an increase of 87 per cent. in the past five years. The Government have approved investment for a second major passenger terminal there.
It would be a mistake to suppose that expansion at Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Northern Ireland would make possible a radical shift in the pattern of demand for air services. It is a fact that about three out of four passengers at London airports start or finish their journeys in the south-east. In time we shall see more of a regional balance, as people begin to realise the attractions of living and working in the north-east, the north-west, the south-west, Wales and Scotland.
Under this Government, we have seen greater recognition of regional opportunities, rather than relying on a few civil servants sitting in a London office block and trying to direct others away from London. We have been trying to build up the proper attractions of other regions in terms of community, education and quality of life because that will lead to a greater movement away from London and the south-east, and will remove some of the terrible development pressures which have been suffered on the outskirts of London.
I therefore welcome this opportunity to stress the importance of this topical subject of air traffic control and capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the dispute in France. We should acknowledge

what some of our disputes have done to other people. Let us imagine, for example, a person who is trying to tour England, but who finds that some mode of transport cannot be used. I hope that, both in this country and in Europe, we can work towards recognising our responsibilities towards others and that we should not—whether we are French or English, British or European in a more general sense—wantonly destroy the holiday of a lifetime for people who may have been saving up for their first chance to visit the "Costa Lot".
Naturally, I hope that many people will follow my habit of taking my main summer holiday in the United Kingdom, whether it be to the loughs of Northern Ireland, the lakes of Wales, the lochs of Scotland or the coast of the Isle of Wight. I am sure that many people want to appreciate what we have in Britain. However, those who want to go the "Costa Lot" should have the chance of flying without unnecessary delay.
I pay tribute to many people involved in the travel business, not only to the operators, but also to the agents who have made it possible for many more people from this nation to see places abroad, whether they are in the rest of Europe, across the Atlantic or in other parts of the world.
We should remember that the difficulties that we are now facing, leaving aside the additional issue of disputes, are the result of successes in both the industry and the economy. Those successes have led to levels of activity and volumes of traffic which no one could have predicted. The challenge now is to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the system to accommodate the traffic and to realise the fruit that it can yield.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the CAA's advice. The 1985 White Paper set out strategy to take us through to the mid-1990s. There is now a need to carry forward White Paper strategy. Last summer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commissioned the CAA to provide advice covering both airport and airspace capacity. The authority has consulted widely, and today has published advice on the traffic distribution policy for the London airports. This is an important piece of work, and we shall now study it carefully. In doing so, we will also be keeping in mind views expressed on the subject by the Select Committee on Transport in its report published in March, and the report published last week by the independent committee chaired by Lord Rawlinson.
The CAA now proposes to do further technical work to provide us next summer with advice on airport capacity in the longer term, including on the key question of runway capacity. It would be wrong to anticipate the authority's advice on those longer term issues tonight.
One reason for tonight's Adjournment debate is to put more of these issues on the public agenda, rather than to go in for quick snap answers and responses to the CAA's initial views and to the later views, yet to come forward.
I turn now to the major causes of aircraft delays. We must remember that aircrafts do not have feelings, except for that jumbo jet that we keep reading about. It is people—passengers—who have feelings and who are affected by aircraft delays. The major cause of delays to aircraft is airspace congestion, which affects all airports in the United Kingdom, and is not confined to airports in the south-east.
There is a shortage of airspace capacity throughout Europe. It is not a problem confined to the popular


holiday destinations like Greece and Spain. Countries like the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the United Kingdom all face a serious shortfall in capacity.
At busy times, flow management restrictions have to be introduced. Aircraft are either re-routed round the congested bottlenecks, or are held on the ground until the system can accommodate them. Without flow management, the system would become overloaded at busy times with too many aircraft entering the airspace for the controllers to handle safely.
Even if everything was working smoothly, flow management is needed nowadays at busy times to keep the system safe. As has been said, it is worth remembering that the take-off slot times which the aircraft would be given would not usually delay them for very long—say, for 15 to 20 minutes.
One reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has lent his presence to the debate—he has been heard giving his support to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—is the issue of night flights. Our policy on this is clear. The Government are committed to improving the night noise climate around Gatwick and Heathrow without imposing unnecessary restrictions on the airline industry. Those two points together are the points that matter most.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Why can we not move to the total closure of airports in this country, as they do on the continent?

Mr. Bottomley: I am not an expert on continental airports. I am aware that aeroplanes are at times delayed. One occasionally hears even of Concorde coming across a little late. There are times when one hears a plane in the middle of the night, but that is rare in London and it normally occurs because there has been a delay elsewhere or because of some other problem. To take an absolutist view may not be possible, but if my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has points to add to my response, I will pass them on to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said that London Heathrow, if not the closest in, affected the population most. A larger population here may be affected, but I remember coming in to land at Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong. At least, when coming into Heathrow, one does not find oneself flying beneath buildings, with people looking down from their bathroom windows as one's jumbo jet comes into land.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): The same applies to Detroit.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to remind me of Detroit. There may be other city airports where the same state of affairs exists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was making the point that there was potential in London for a large number of people to be disturbed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes reminded us, all the planes seem to change gear as they pass over his constituency.
Traffic forecasting is not an exact science. It is difficult to do. We are learning all the time and we hope to move forward so that, at London airports and throughout the country, we can meet people's needs. In all forms of transport, we are dedicated to do the best we can to make life better, not worse, and to extend opportunity, while maintaining, if possible improving, the environmental impact which is part of the airline industry.
To that extent, we are getting better and quieter planes and a safer air traffic control system. All those involved, whether in the Government, in the CAA or in the lobby groups, have much of which to be proud. I hope that we shall continue to make further improvements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.